This article assesses the backlash surrounding German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “culture of welcome,” a policy of welcoming large numbers of refugees from the Middle East, North Africa and West Asia. Although this policy gained momentum in the summer of 2015, a strong backlash has ensued in 2016, culminating, all across Europe, in the election, one after the other, of far-right “populist” anti-immigration and right-wing parties and movements. This article employs data from European Social Survey (ESS) and the World Values Survey (WVS) to create an accurate diagnostic image of the major storm gathering on the European horizon.
In the novel Submission by the French writer Michel Houellebecq, the weakened political left in France teams up with the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood to prevent the far-right Front National from winning the French Presidential election in 2022. The net result of this is the triumph of Islamism in the country of freedom, equality and brotherhood. Ironic and even cynical as the novel is, it could well portray the future trajectory of European politics, as judged from a thorough data analysis of European Social Survey (ESS) data. These data seem to suggest that there is at least a grain of truth in the social logic described in Houellebecq’s novel: a weakened European social democracy, losing out its electorate to the far right, while depending more and more on the Muslim vote to win elections.
This article will assess significant European opinion structures in the context of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s policy of welcoming large numbers of refugees from the Middle East, North Africa and West Asia, a policy which gained momentum in the summer of 2015, and which has not met her promised objective of integrating these hundreds of thousands of newcomers into the climate and culture of the countries which have taken them in. This policy has caused a strong backlash, culminating, all across Europe, in the election success, one after the other, of far-right “populist” anti-immigration and Euro-skeptical parties and movements. In order to assess the underlying destructive dynamics of these events, which might even destroy the very trajectory of European integration, we employ advanced statistical data analysis from the publicly-accessible European Social Survey (ESS) project (interview waves of 2014), augmented by some global comparative data from the World Values Survey (WVS). Data from the ESS interview wave in 2016 has not yet been made available to the public as of this writing, so this preliminary data analysis constitutes, so to speak, photographs of the clouds of this very strong storm gathering on the European horizon in 2014—an early “X-ray” of the developing crisis.
The current European far-right wing electoral tendencies seem to contradict the results of a May 2016 poll commissioned by the human rights NGO Amnesty International suggesting that large majorities in many countries, including European countries, continue to welcome asylum-seekers.
As of August 2016, all indicators were that the number of refugees would increase dramatically again in the final months of 2016 after the likely failure of the European Union and Turkey to reach an agreement on regulating refugee inflow into the EU. The anticipated breakdown of this agreement will mean revisiting the scenarios of summer and fall 2015, when hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers entered Europe, often without proper security checks and identity controls. During that period, voices warning about the political and even security risks involved in the context of the violently anti-Semitic global Islamist ideology were little heeded in several European countries, which continue to put into practice Chancellor Merkel’s “culture of welcome.”
First, to realistically highlight the grave security risks involved with the current situation, stemming from rising Islamist ideology, both “imported” and “homegrown,” in the context of hundreds of thousands of newly-arrived individuals from Arab countries, the Middle East and North Africa, we evaluate some well-known surveys from the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS) in Doha, Qatar, as well as of the Pew Institute in Washington, D.C., on opinion structures in the countries of origin of the current refugee wave to Europe. By 2014, it had already become clear that large-scale Muslim immigration from the Middle East, North Africa and West Asia would greatly polarize the European political systems, and that, in reality, no easy solution was available.
Opinion surveys in Arab and Muslim countries suggest a support rate of 13 percent (classified as “strong/some” support) for ISIL terrorism among Syrian refugees scattered over the entire Middle East and among 11 percent of the broader Arab population in eight Arab countries and territories, raising the specter of a considerable influx of hard-core Islamist terrorists into Europe among the masses of refugees now entering the continent. Add to this the considerable ISIL support in other Muslim majority states which play a key figure in the unfolding current events either as countries of refugee origin or – in the case of Turkey – as a key European partner. Turkey increasingly follows its own Neo-Ottoman and global Islamist agenda under President Erdogan’s leadership. A 2013 Pew Poll even revealed that a staggering 49 percent of Turks regard the United States – the key country of the Western military NATO alliance to which Turkey has belonged since 1952 – as an enemy.
Table 1 briefly presents the existing opinion survey figures with regard to support of terrorism among the Arab population. Whatever stance one takes in the debate about the visa-free access of Turkish citizens to European Union territory, which has been added to the agenda in light of the EU-Turkey refugee deal, it is clear that the presence among the adult Turkish population of fully 8% who claim they are supporters of ISIL represents a huge security risk for the entire West, not only for Europe. This figure represents not only hundreds of thousands of Turkish supporters of hard-core Islamist terror, but also millions who now might travel without any restrictions in the entire Schengen accord area of the EU, from Honningsvåg in Northern Norway to Limassol in Cyprus, if the proposed deal between Turkey and the EU becomes reality. In this context, it is also important to face with complete honesty the fact that up to a third of the Syrian refugee population in the Middle East, according to the ACRPS survey, does not even want a democratic, but rather, a theocratic state. The problems of integrating these masses into the workings of Western European democracies represent an enormous future task.
Table 1: ISIL terror support rates (in ascending order) in key Middle East and Muslim countries, in percentage of the total adult population. Data from ACPSR and PEW.
|ACPSR 2014||ACPSR 2015||PEW 2015||ISIL terror support rates (Average)|
Facing this seemingly endless influx of asylum seekers from the most unstable and also potentially the most radical political regions of the world, it is also important to consider that in 2015, Germany alone already received almost 500,000 asylum applications. This gives some idea of the magnitude of the security risks involved with such numbers, particularly given the background of the opinion structures in the countries of origin, as documented in Table 1. Of the almost 1.3 million asylum applications filed with authorities in the EU-28 by citizens from countries outside the EU in 2015, almost 360,000 were from Syria, almost 180,000 were from Afghanistan, and over 120,000 from Iraq. During this period, Germany received 38 percent of the total applications for asylum in the EU Member States, followed by Sweden, with 21 percent, Austria, with 7 percent and Italy and France, with 6 percent each.
For the security analysis community of Western countries, including Israel, this situation creates the urgent need for a more detached and serious look at the available European international opinion data to assess the real “opinion landscape” of the current migration crisis in Europe and the policy options which these data seem to suggest. It is entirely conceivable that the old structure of the European political party systems, dominated for decades by Christian democratic, social democratic, liberal, and green parties, has ultimately been transformed into a structure dominated by a sharp polarization between pro- and anti-immigration parties.
While liberal immigration and asylum policies are somewhat supported by the well-educated and rich elites, the political left, which used to be supported by the industrial working class, has progressively lost its support to the European populist right-wing political parties due to the pressures of demographic decline, global industrial production relocation, growing inequalities, globalization and large-scale inward immigration. ESS data from 2014 show that 79.3 percent of Muslims in Austria support the Social Democrats; in Belgium, 13.6 percent support the Social Democrats in the Flemish part of Belgium and 36.4 percent within the French speaking part of the country; in Switzerland, Muslim support for the Social Democrats is 66.7 percent; in Germany, it is 49.2 percent; in Denmark, it is 31.6 percent; in France, it is 58.2 percent; and in Sweden, it is 66.7 percent. Other more left-wing and “green” political parties also did rather well in receiving Muslim support.
EUROPE: FACING THE BIG MIGRATION INFLUX
The Austrian Johannes Hahn, European commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy & Enlargement Negotiations, thus, the commissioner responsible for relations with Turkey, remarked on September 17, 2015 that in the immediate neighborhood of Europe, there are already 20 more million refugees waiting for passage to Europe. Even for rich Western European democracies such as Austria, Germany, or Sweden, such numbers will undoubtedly exceed their integration capacities, and threaten to throw these nations into chaos.
Sweden, which hitherto had the most liberal and rapid integration policies in Europe for newcomers of all sorts, has been praised in the international social science literature as the country offering the best practices when it comes to integration of migrants. But since 2010, Sweden has seen an unprecedented wave of hate crimes against Jews, which has only magnified since then, and signs of other strains on its once very liberal policy of asylum and migration are mounting. Rifts in these policies were already evident at the beginning of the 2010s. One could add here that there is a growing feeling among Jewish communities in Europe that they are now confronted with a new kind of “imported antisemitism”, reflected in the staggering rates of antisemitism among Europe’s Muslim communities, as evidenced in a recent ADL-100 survey. An average of 55 percent of Western European Muslims harbored anti-Semitic attitudes. Barely noticed by the adherents of the “culture of welcome” in other European countries, especially Germany and Austria, the Left/Green coalition government in Sweden had to introduce very harsh influx control measures in January 2016.
EURABIA AROUND THE CORNER?
Given the growth of populistic parties all over Europe, the question becomes whether this growth is a result of not dealing with the problems of integrating the newcomers into their recipient societies. Another major question at this juncture is the migration pressure on European societies in the immediate future, beyond those individuals who are forced to seek asylum due to the war and destruction currently devastating Syria, Iraq, and Libya.
An ACRPS survey in Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Kuwait, which represent 90 percent of the total population of the Arab League, provided additional useful data for projecting the expected migration from the Arab world (in millions of persons). The ACRPS says that an astonishing percentage of 22 percent of the total Arab population would like to emigrate. Even a conservative estimate, applying World Bank population figures and findings from a recent global Gallup survey indicating that for every 100 global inhabitants saying that they intend to emigrate, only 7.3 percent are indeed planning to move and only 3 percent ultimately actually have actually taken concrete steps towards emigration, we arrive at the following figures:
- Arabs currently intending to migrate: 82.95 million individuals
- Arabs currently planning migration: 6.32 million individuals
- Arabs who have undertaken concrete steps to emigrate: 2.5 million individuals
In an opinion piece in The New York Times on Jan. 9, 2016, columnist Ross Douthat stated that until recently, fears of a “Eurabia,” and of mass “Islamization” were hard to credit. Until the most recent wave of asylum-related mass immigration beginning in 2015, Europe’s assimilation challenge looked unpleasant but not insurmountable, and the likelihood of Yugoslavian-style balkanization relatively remote. But given the present situation, Douthat correctly stated that “…we’re in uncharted territory. The issue isn’t just that immigrants are arriving in the hundreds of thousands rather than the tens of thousands. It’s that a huge proportion of them are teenage and twentysomething men.” He backs up this claim with statistics: in Sweden, 71 percent of all asylum applicants in 2015 were men. Sweden, a country of 9.6 million, at the height of the European asylum crisis in 2015, absorbed 10,000 asylum seekers per week. Swedish police, Douthat went on to say in his New York Times article, have acknowledged that they have lost the ability to monitor the whereabouts of foreign nationals within the country.
PREVIOUS EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Having sketched the background and specific concerns behind this article’s empirical analysis, it is worthwhile to look into the international peer-reviewed journals of social science to analyze earlier studies on the subject, using ESS data on migration and its effects on populations’ attitudes within Europe. In one prominent 2015 study, employing the same data and methodology as the present article, Daniel Stockemer revealed that through its targeting of immigrants as a threat to employment, security and cultural cohesion, the radical right averaged 10 percent of the vote in European elections from 2009 to 2013. What drives this vote? Stockemer combined ESS data on individual perceptions of immigrants for more than 25,000 individuals with macro-level data on the actual percentage of foreign-born citizens across 200 European regions. This study highlights the fact that only the individual perceptions of immigration indicator is positively correlated to higher support for radical right-wing parties, and not the actual number of foreign-born citizens. Nagayoshi and Hjerm in their study determined that labor market policies in the form of activation policies affect attitudes toward immigration. They also show that the effects vary across different types of labor market policies and depend on individual levels of socioeconomic vulnerability. Schmidt-Catran and Spies argued that over the period between 1994 to 2010, the native-born population in Germany became increasingly more reluctant to support welfare programs when the proportion of foreigners at the regional level increases. This effect is further moderated by the economic context: the higher the unemployment rate, the more negative the effect of foreigners on natives’ attitude toward providing welfare programs.
METHODS AND DATA
In this study, we use multivariate analysis applied to publicly-available survey results from the ESS and WVS to measure what the European population really thinks about mass migration and why it holds these beliefs. The chosen methodology for this study was the promax factor analysis, based on the Standard Statistical Package SPSS, 23. In comparison to several other factor analytical models, this offers a good model to calculate correlations between the factors, which are the underlying dimensions of an empirical research project, based on the matrix of bi-variate correlations between the variables. Representative data for 2014 are available from Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland, and are based on more than 28.000 representative interviews in these countries. Earlier data also include such countries as the Ukraine and Israel.
We decided to run three factor analytical models. The first was aimed at measuring support for the “culture of welcome” and its dynamics. The variables were also used to classify the European countries by their average support rates for Chancellor Merkel’s “culture of welcome.” The second analysis dealt with the overall patterns of xenophobia and extremism in Europe. The factors extracted from these variables were used to classify how radicalism or moderate the mood was of supporters and voters in Europe. The last factor analytical attempt was directed at analyzing the “class background” of opinions on asylum and migration policy.
In order to accommodate space limitations here, all these tables, containing the SPSS empirical results from the ESS freely available on the Internet. So this article will focus on presenting the results in a verbal, non-statistical fashion for the larger readership of this journal.
Support for Angela Merkel’s refugee policy is spread unevenly across Europe
Far from supporting the generalized optimism of the Amnesty International survey, mentioned briefly at the beginning of this article, which claims that a majority of Europeans continue to welcome asylum-seekers, comparative opinion surveys from the WSS and ESS squarely contradict these findings.
Data analysis relied on original interview data from Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Sweden reveal that on a 4-point scale about Muslim migration to Europe, ranging from “Allow many to come and live here” (1.0); “Allow some” (2.0); “Allow a few” (3.0); to “Allow none” (4.0); only 15.5 percent of Europeans supported the view that European governments should admit many Muslims. 40.7 percent of Europeans think that some Muslims should be admitted; 26.8 percent are in favor of admitting only a few, while 16.9 percent are in favor of a total ban on Muslim immigration.
This study’s electronic annex tables, available from our team’s website Tables 1 and 2a and 2b, show that even in poorer developing countries, attitudes against mass migration have hardened in recent years, and that even among the majority of European Muslims, there is now increased skepticism towards further newcomers, severely questioning the “culture of welcome” so prominent among the European political left. Table 1, based on WVS data, show that Spain and Sweden are the only member countries of the EU where the most liberal attitude towards migration (“let anyone come”) is supported by more than 10 percent of the population. This table also implies that international efforts to resettle Afghan, Iraqi, and Syrian refugees would perhaps be supported by influential pro-immigration minorities in other countries, including China and Saudi Arabia, where acceptancy of large-scale immigration is currently higher than in Europe.
Positive attitudes towards Muslim migration in Europe (“allow many Muslims to come”), as seen in Table 2a, are found only among European minorities; in Sweden and Germany this percentage is above 20 percent, but nowhere it is a majority position. As already mentioned, even European Muslims (Table 2b) are skeptical about further mass Muslim migration, and not a single European Muslim community, as surveyed by the ESS, takes a majority position (50% + 1) that many Muslims should be allowed to come and live in their community. In Table 2c, we document the population-weighted results for all the ESS samples of the 2014 survey. Taking into account the different population sizes of European countries, we get, as mentioned briefly above, the combined results for the entire European continent in Table 2c, which clearly documents that only 15.5 percent of Europeans surveyed are in favor of allowing many Muslims to come and live in Europe.
Tables 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d demonstrate the results of our first factor analytical investigation into the drivers of the current crisis. Our model explains 60.7 percent of the total variance. It combines background variables about education and religiosity or secular life style with variables involving trust and attitudes on migration. The trust variables also contain items on European integration and European institutions.
Table 3a shows the factor loadings after the promax rotation of principal components, which explain the underlying correlation matrix between the variables, and shows how we interpret the results in terms of the processes “trust,” “xenophobia,” “secularism,” and “European anti-racism.” We document the correlation between these dimensions in Table 3b. While today, “secularism” does not play any major role in determining trust, xenophobia, and European anti-racism, mainly because European churches and religious denominations, just like overall society, are deeply split on the issues under scrutiny here, we can nonetheless show the overall relevance of the trust-xenophobia and trust-anti-racism dimensions.
Still more relevant for immediate policy conclusions, we have combined three factors—trust, absence of xenophobia, and European anti-racism—into a factor analytical measurement scale to demonstrate the broad acceptance of the European “culture of welcome.” The weighting of the three factors corresponds to their statistical so-called Eigenvalues. Table 3c shows the end result of this statistical endeavor. The national population support rates for the European “culture of welcome” were still strongest in Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway and Denmark), followed by the Netherlands and Switzerland. Finland and Germany still have positive overall indicator values, while Belgium, Austria and France actually show negative overall indicator values. The group of “unwilling partners” within the EU, at the very bottom of the table, comprises Ireland, Estonia, Slovenia, and Poland and the Czech Republic. Table 3c shows just how divisive the issue has become for European integration, and underscores the impossibility of “burden sharing,” distributing the refugee populations among different EU member states. These unwilling partners will simply not carry through with European “burden sharing” measures, because their electorates are so highly opinionated against such policies.
Factor analytical classification of European political parties: the crumbling middle ground
Since the 1990s, comparative social science research focused primarily on the growing wave of anti-immigrant and xenophobic parties in Europe. The French Front National, the Austrian FPÖ, and several other such parties were frequently highlighted in such research. Some of the earlier studies on these parties also made extensive use of multivariate, advanced statistical models like factor analysis to attempt to answer the question of why such parties were enjoying such success.
Our own factor analytical model, based on the ESS data, is precisely designed to analyze the European electorates according to their radicalism along such dimensions as anti-immigration, rejection of Jewish, Muslim or Roma/Sinti immigration, other forms of xenophobia, their personal closeness or distance to migrant communities and their general degree of “culturalism,” that is, their belief that their own culture is unique and superior in the global community. The choice of variables used in our study was greatly influenced by earlier studies on these issues,  while drawing on the far superior and more extensive data base of the ESS 2014. Our statistical comparisons are perhaps useful in classifying the electorate of European political parties according to their right-wing, xenophobic extremism.
Our study explains 59.4 percent of the total variance of the variables of our model. Table 4a shows the factor analytical weights which we used in the political party classification, based on the Eigenvalues in our promax factor analysis, while Table 4c shows the factor loadings of our six factors whose Eigenvalues are greater or equal to 1.0 and thus are being interpreted according to the standard conventions of factor analysis.
The six factors which can be interpreted in a meaningful way according to the mentioned Eigenvalues criteria were:
- Anti-immigration sentiment
- Rejection of racism
- Lack of personal multicultural experience
- Right-wing culturalism
Table 4c shows the correlations of the promax factors, while Table 4d is the final classification result of the electorates of over 90 political parties in Europe. Based on criteria that include pro-immigration attitudes, their absence of Euro-multiculturalism, their racism, the lack of a personal multicultural experience, and their right-wing culturalism, it is fair to suggest that the following ten parties are the ten most anti-liberal operating in Europe:
- France: FN (Front National)
- Austria : FPÖ
- Denmark: Dansk Folkeparti – Danish People’s party
- Netherlands: Party for Freedom
- Finland: True Finns
- Estonia: Eesti Keskerakond
- Switzerland: Swiss People’s Party
- Norway: Progress Party (FRP)
- Poland: Law and Justice (PiS)
- Belgium: N-VA
Liberal asylum and migration policy is supported mainly by the upper classes
Our last factor analysis about the class support of the “culture of welcome” explains 58.4 percent of the total variance. Tables 5a, 5b, as well as Table 6 contain the most important results in this respect. These tables analyze the following five factors whose Eigenvalues are greater or equal to 1.0:
- Anti-immigration sentiment 
- Civil society
- Upper classes
Our correlation analysis between these factors reveals the close interconnectedness between the factors of trust, an active civil society and belonging to the upper classes on the one hand and the anti-immigration sentiment, which is becoming part and parcel of the “proletarian” political culture of Europe in the twenty-first century, on the other hand. No false complacency should exist about the possible destructive nature of these correlations: while globalization and the European single market undoubtedly lead to an ever more polarized income structure, and trust and an active civil society are anchored more or less increasingly among the well-to-do segments of society, the proletarized and marginalized European “masses” are becoming increasingly skeptical about European integration and mass immigration. In countries like Spain and Greece, voters turn to left-wing populist movements. The Northern European left-wing political parties have not thus far questioned the “rules of the game” of the neo-liberal European Union policy consensus and have increasingly become dependent on immigrant votes for political support as they call for a liberal immigration and asylum policy. The angry and disillusioned under-class “native” voters start to follow the siren calls of right-wing populism. Table 6 shows some of the consequences of these processes on a country-to-country level.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: “SUBMISSION,” ALL OVER AGAIN?
For the policy planners and security communities of other Western democracies, and also in the State of Israel, the attitudes revealed through this study of existing survey data pose intricate foreign policy and security questions. Supporters of many political parties in Europe feel a growing unease about the current intensive Muslim mass migration to Europe. This seems to be the trigger which determines the rise of a right-wing populist party landscape. Graphs 1, 2a, 2b, and 3 highlight the supporters and sympathizers of the French Front National and the Austrian FPÖ in a comparative perspective according to the factor analytical criteria developed in this article. In both countries, voter preferences would suggest that the two respective major Christian democratic parties, the UMP in France and the ÖVP in Austria, are in fact more and more similar to the Front National and the FPÖ. Until 2016, this was less true for Germany.
Graph 4 highlights the role of secularism in this relationship. Since Christian Churches in Europe are as deeply divided on the issues examined here as the general population, there are few real differences in the attitudes of religiously active and secular Europeans on the issues under scrutiny here.
Graph 5 and Tables 7a, 7b, and 7c start from the interconnectedness between the rejection of Jewish immigration and the rejection of Muslim immigration to Europe. While the two variables have almost 4/5 of the variance in common, and the rejection of Jewish immigration explains almost 80 percent of the rejection of Muslim immigration, it is noteworthy to analyze which electorates harbor relatively stronger anti-Muslim sentiments, and which harbor relatively fewer anti-Muslim sentiments (always statistically predicted by their rejection of Jewish immigration).
Tables 7a and 7b depict the evolving bifurcation of the European party systems according to the opinions of the electorate about Muslim mass immigration. The political parties of the left (most notably green and social democratic parties in Western Europe) display a much more “liberal” attitude on Muslim inward mass migration than on Jewish immigration, while the populist protest parties of the right in Western Europe increasingly trade their old and historic anti-Jewish sentiments for a “new” positioning against Muslim mass immigration. Table 7c also shows the classification of the political parties in Eastern Europe according to these criteria. While parties in the Czech Republic, Estonia and Poland reflect a tendency towards a stronger anti-Muslim migration sentiment at given levels of rejection of Jewish immigration and thus become similar to Western European right-wing populism, parties in Slovenia instead correspond to the new pattern emerging among European left-wing parties.
As if to confirm Houellebecq’s ironic and dark prophecies, just one week after the Austrian presidential elections, whose results were by the way annulled by the Austrian Constitutional Court for severe electoral irregularities, and which now have to be repeated in October 2016, the head of the powerful Vienna Social Democrats, Michael Häupl, whose mass mobilization in the capital of Austria against the right-wing populist candidate Norbert Hofer was decisive in the May 22, 2016 election results, went to Iran on a trip only days after this election. The goal of the trip was to dramatically increase cooperation between the city of Vienna and the city of Tehran. Thus, Austria is perhaps bidding farewell to the spirit of “civil society,” mobilized against the imminent danger of a right-wing populist election victory. Häupl expressed no qualms about Iran’s nuclear ambitions against the Jewish state, no qualms about the violations of human rights in Iran, and no qualms about the rights of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in Iran.
The twenty parties whose supporters most strongly reject Jewish immigration to Europe today are:
- Slovenia: DESUS – Demokraticna stranka upokojencev Slovenije
- Czech Republic: KSCM
- Slovenia: SDS – Slovenska demokratska stranka
- Netherlands: Party for Freedom
- Austria: FPÖ
- Czech Republic: CSSD
- Poland: Law and Justice
- Poland: Polish Peasants Party
- France: FN (Front National)
- Czech Republic: ANO 2011
- Finland: The Centre Party
- Finland: True Finns
- Switzerland: Swiss People’s Party
- Ireland: Fianna Fáil
- Belgium: PS
- Belgium: N-VA
- Denmark: Dansk Folkeparti – Danish peoples party
- Czech Republic: TOP 09
- Ireland: Sinn Féin
- Finland: Social Democratic Party
Among this group of the top 20 electorates opposing Jewish immigration to Europe, one finds not only right-wing parties, but also the already-left-wing Belgian Socialists, the left-wing Irish Sinn Féin, and the Finnish Social Democrats. And this, according to our prognosis, is just a beginning.
For the security of the State of Israel, these tendencies suggest a rather dire picture. During the times of darkness of Fascism, through post-war European reconstruction from 1945 until the end of Communism in 1989, social democracy and later the green parties represented a voice of reason and hope, and their political ideology was clearly structured around the ideas of moderate reforms of capitalism and the Enlightenment.
Given the tendencies of recent years, as seen in our study, a rather different picture of European politics has begun to emerge: a waning social democracy and to a certain extent also a waning “green movement”, whose mass bases of support dwindle as the multifold pressures of globalization, mass migration, and a neo-liberal project of European integration more and more undermine the basis of the social contract of European successful development. European right-wing populist parties are there to stay for the foreseeable future.
*Arno Tausch is Professor of Economics at Corvinus University Budapest, and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Innsbruck University, Austria.
 Michel Houellebecq; Lorin Stein. Submission. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/world/europe/austria-presidential-election.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0 and http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/22/world/europe/europe-right-wing-austria-hungary.html?version=meter+at+5&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Ftodayspaper%2Findex.html&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click.
 Park, Jeanne. “Europe’s Migration Crisis.” New York: Council of Foreign Relations (2015); Trauner, Florian. “Asylum policy: the EU’s ‘crises’ and the looming policy regime failure.” Journal of European Integration 38.3 (2016): 311-325; Falkner, Gerda. “The EU’s current crisis and its policy effects: research design and comparative findings.” Journal of European Integration 38.3 (2016): 219-235.
 http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=11693 and http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/merkel-refugee-deal-with-turkey-in-danger-of-failure-a-1092331.html. For up-to-date analyses on Turkey after the recent coup attempt of July 2016, see also: http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=12184; and http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=12141; as well as http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/How%20Erdogan%20won%20-%20Gallia%20-%20Ynet%20-%20site%20.pdf.
 Jenkins, Brian Michael. “The Dynamics of the Conflicts in Syria and Iraq and the Threat Posed by Homegrown Terrorists and Returning Western Fighters.” (2015). Rand Corporation, available at http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/CT400/CT443/RAND_CT443.pdf.
 See especially http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Europes-refugee-crisis-Jews-must-tread-carefully-429967; furthermore: Carrera, Sergio, et al. “The EU’s Response to the Refugee Crisis: Taking Stock and Setting Policy Priorities.” CEPS Essay 20/16 (2015).
See especially: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/opinion/turkeys-self-inflicted-disaster.html?_r=0; and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suat-kiniklioglu/turkey-abyss-erdogan_b_8295198.html. For general analyses on Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean region, see also http://www.rubincenter.org/?s=turkey+erdogan; and http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4356&cx=009063389744424113161%3At4lmrae0b7w&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=turkey+erdogan&sa=Search&siteurl=www.inss.org.il%2Fsearchframe.aspx%3Flang%3Dltr&ref=www.inss.org.il%2F&ss=3452j1280984j14.
 For the accords, regulating visa-free and border control free movements of citizens across the signatory states in Europe, see: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al33020. All EU-member states except the UK and Ireland signed these agreements; in addition, the non-EU-members Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are signatories of these accords.
 The most relevant recent survey data on Muslim/Arab support for ISIL are:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/ (PEW) and the ACRPS surveys, freely available from: http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e; http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/bbe55d86-1191-420f-b7bc-f683c421a5a4; and http://english.dohainstitute.org/release/c63f7d20-c95a-46a8-8bfd-fcbc78082afe.
 see also Tausch, Arno. “The Fertile Grounds for ISIL Terrorism.” Telos 2015.171 (2015): 54-75.
 http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Broschueren/bundesamt-in-zahlen-2015-asyl.html?nn=1367528 and http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_quarterly_report.
 Tausch, Arno. “Reconsidering Migration, Globalization and Social Conditions in the World System.” Boğaziçi Journal. Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies 27.2 (2013): 63-82 and Tausch, Arno and Almas Heshmati (2012), “Migration, Openness and the Global Preconditions of ‘Smart Development’”. Boğaziçi Journal. Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies 26(2), 27-89.
 Sample size bigger or equal to 30 in accordance with common statistical practice.
 The various other left-wing parties in Denmark also receive heavy support from the country’s Muslims.
 http://www.mipex.eu/. For a critique of the entire approach, see: Boucher, Anna, and Justin Gest. “Migration studies at a crossroads: A critique of immigration regime typologies.” Migration Studies 3.2 (2015): 182-198.
 The basic monitoring of these tendencies is carried out by the EU’s European Fundamental Rights Agency; http://www.eurojewcong.org/docs/FRA_Antisemitism_survey_report_main_results.pdf. See also: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/anti-semitism-in-malm%C3%B6-reveals-flaws-in-swedish-immigration-system-1.3080484 and http://www.timesofisrael.com/facing-death-chants-and-hate-crimes-swedens-jews-live-in-a-climate-of-fear/.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/world/europe/swedens-riots-put-its-identity-in-question.html; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/europe/rift-emerges-in-sweden-over-immigration.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/swedens-self-inflicted-nightmare.html.
 Jikeli, Günther. “Antisemitic Attitudes among Muslims in Europe: A Survey Review.” ISGAP Occasional Paper Series, Number 1, May 2015, available at http://isgap.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Jikeli_Antisemitic_Attitudes_among_Muslims_in_Europe1.pdf.
 http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-limits-of-humanity-merkel-refugee-policies-have-failed-a-1079455.html; http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/critique-of-merkel-on-refugee-issue-deepens-a-1072549.html; and http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/refugee-crisis-policies-have-merkel-on-defensive-in-europe-a-1081820.html.
 Tausch, Arno, Europe’s Refugee Crisis, 2015.
 Stockemer, Daniel. “Structural Data on Immigration or Immigration Perceptions? What Accounts for the Electoral Success of the Radical Right in Europe?.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies (2015).
 Nagayoshi, Kikuko, and Mikael Hjerm. “Anti-immigration attitudes in different welfare states: Do types of labor market policies matter?.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology (2015): 0020715215591379.
 Schmidt-Catran, Alexander W., and Dennis C. Spies. “Immigration and Welfare Support in Germany.” American Sociological Review (2016): 0003122416633140.
 Tausch, Arno, Almas Heshmati, and Hichem Karoui. “The political algebra of global value change.” General models and implications for the Muslim world. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers (2014).
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/output/factor1.htm and http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLVMB_20.0.0/com.ibm.spss.statistics.help/alg_factor_promax.htm. For a general survey on factor analysis with the SPSS program, see also http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLVMB_20.0.0/com.ibm.spss.statistics.help/alg_factor.htm.
 The current author is greatly indebted here to the research by Harvard economist Alberto Alesina, see especially Alesina, Alberto, and Paola Giuliano. Culture and institutions. No. w19750. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013.
 Loch, Dietmar, and Ov Cristian Norocel. “The Populist Radical Right in Europe A Xenophobic Voice in the Global Economic Crisis.” Europe’s Prolonged Crisis: The Making Or the Unmaking of a Political Union (2015). Available at http://ecpr.eu/filestore/paperproposal/93e537ee-b50a-4d4d-b3b7-c922e3bba523.pdf; Williams, Michelle Hale. “Are radical right-wing parties the black holes in party space? Implications and limitations in impact assessment of radical right-wing parties.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38.8 (2015): 1329-1338.
 Hartleb, Florian. “Here to stay: anti-establishment parties in Europe.” European View 14.1 (2015): 39-49.
 Akkerman, Tjitske, Sarah L. de Lange, and Matthijs Rooduijn, eds. Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe: Into the Mainstream?. Routledge, 2016.
 Mudde, Cas. Populist radical right parties in Europe. Vol. 22. No. 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007; and Wodak, Ruth, and Anton Pelinka, eds. The Haider Phenomenon in Austria. Transaction Publishers, 2002.
 Lucassen, Geertje, and Marcel Lubbers. “Who fears what? Explaining far-right-wing preference in Europe by distinguishing perceived cultural and economic ethnic threats.” Comparative Political Studies 45.5 (2012): 547-574; Van der Brug, Wouter, and Joost Van Spanje. “Immigration, Europe and the ‘new’cultural dimension.” European Journal of Political Research 48.3 (2009): 309-334; Bustikova, Lenka, and Herbert Kitschelt. “The radical right in post-communist Europe. Comparative perspectives on legacies and party competition.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 42.4 (2009): 459-483; Green‐Pedersen, Christoffer. “The growing importance of issue competition: The changing nature of party competition in Western Europe.” Political Studies 55.3 (2007): 607-628.
 Pottie‐Sherman, Yolande, and Rima Wilkes. “Does Size Really Matter? On the Relationship between Immigrant Group Size and Anti‐Immigrant Prejudice.” International Migration Review (2015).
 Hellwig, Timothy, and Yesola Kweon. “Taking cues on multidimensional issues: the case of attitudes toward immigration.” West European Politics 39.4 (2016): 710-730; Aschauer, Wolfgang. “Societal Malaise and Ethnocentrism in the European Union: Monitoring Societal Change by Focusing on EU Citizens’ Perceptions of Crisis.” Historical Social Research 41.2 (2016).
 See also: Gorodzeisky, Anastasia, and Moshe Semyonov. “Not Only Competitive Threat But Also Racial Prejudice: Sources of Anti-Immigrant Attitudes in European Societies.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research (2015): edv024.
 Bard, Petra, et al. “An EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law, and Fundamental Rigths: Assessing the Need and Possibilities for the Establishment of an EU Scoreboard on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights.” European Parliament, Research Paper PE 579328 (2016).
 As can be seen in Table 4b, page 8 to 10 of our Appendix at https://www.academia.edu/25961873/Muslim_immigration_continues_to_divide_Europe_a_quantitative_analysis_of_European_Social_Survey_data, the results of our mathematical-statistical procedure of promax factor analysis combine the following ESS items with a factor loading of bigger or equal to 0.500 into a factor which could be called “anti-immigration sentiment” (in descending order of magnitude): allow no immigrants of different race/ethnic group from majority; allow no immigrants from poorer countries in Europe; allow no immigrants from poorer countries outside Europe; allow no Muslims to come and live in the country; allow no immigrants of the same race/ethnic group as majority; allow no Gypsies to come and live in the country; allow no Jewish people to come and live in the country; immigration bad for the country’s economy; the country’s cultural life undermined by immigrants.
 See Tables 5a, 5b, as well as Table 6 of our Appendix at https://www.academia.edu/25961873/Muslim_immigration_continues_to_divide_Europe_a_quantitative_analysis_of_European_Social_Survey_data. As is to be seen from these Tables, the factor is similar to the one described above.
 Tausch, Arno, and Almas Heshmati. Globalization, the Human Condition, and Sustainable Development in the Twenty-first Century: Cross-national Perspectives and European Implications. Anthem Press, 2013.