The question of immigration is emerging as the most important phenomenon of the 21st century. Its social and political implications threaten the foundations of open society in the West. It is appropriate to clarify the nature of the phenomenon and to address Israel's special situation separately.

Inequality characterizes human society. In developed and established countries, in recent generations a systematic effort has been made to reduce inequality within the sovereign state. This is sometimes accompanied by a willingness to help poor and failed states, especially on considerations enshrined in foreign policy.

But the establishment of the welfare state, the opportunities it offered, and the tremendous resources it devotes, duly, to help the weaker strata in the vicinity, attracted many migrants. They wanted to harness their talents and diligence for the benefit of developed society and accepted the values ​​that built them from the outset to the quality of life of all its residents. Alongside them, undesirable migrants were attracted to her - those who came to live at her expense and contribute but little, if any, to her welfare. These brought with it the characteristics of the failed and violent culture that caused poverty and civil wars in the source countries from which they fled to Europe or the United States.

This problem is aggravated by a simplistic and radical version of recent liberalism in developed societies. This, in fact, in the name of multiculturalism, encourages the promiscuous behavior of immigrants. It also allows a population with deleterious characteristics to grow uncontrollably, and gives the negative elements near immunity from criticism and a yielding cry.

This version has feelings of guilt for the (real) sins of colonialism and shallowly interprets the (essential) struggle against the fascist right and European nationalism. She also sees moderate revelations of national solidarity in the west beginning of a slippery slope leading to fascism. Concerned, justified in itself, for racially graded cultures, she is unwilling to acknowledge the value of a pluralistic and open culture over a culture dedicated to women oppression, seclusion, incitement and violent behavior.

The most dangerous of all the distortions of the radical approach is the demand of Western countries to break free of their sovereignty, to absorb among them also immigrants who have stolen their borders and to give a vested right to anyone suffering and severe threat in his homeland to find refuge in the developed West. Tens of millions of people living in failed and poor countries, in violent and oppressive societies, aspire to emigrate to the developed countries. Most of them are unwilling to abandon the culture that brought them disaster. Their huge numbers do not allow the absorption of most of them without the cultural suicide of the absorbing companies. In Africa alone, forecasts for the next generation are predicting a population of 4 billion compared to Europe, whose source population is shrinking rapidly.

Of all these, the necessity for selective absorption of constructive elements is sought from among asylum seekers, who are willing to adopt a pluralistic and constructive culture. Such absorption requires, for its part, hard limits and tight control that will reject most applicants.

The accepted approach among liberal radicalism is collapsing against us. Europe is unwilling to appear as sealing its maritime and land borders for uncontrolled migration. She's hung up on Erdogan, blackmailing her by threatening to flood millions of migrants. In the West, it is customary to give refuge to those who are subject to severe oppression and danger in their own country. From the target countries, in fact, by the broken boundaries and legal commitment, the discretion that allows for constructive migration is made.

The loss of control, the cultural characteristics of many migrants, and the sheer number of immigration advocates have already provoked a deep public reaction to the right, including its dangerous components, and changed Europe's face. The decision on this critical issue is of no concern to judges and attorneys. To do this, a select leadership that is credited with the public's trust is needed to balance the nation's needs without ignoring the complex realities of the present age.

Dr. Dan Schifften is the head of the International Security Program at the University of Haifa and lecturer in security studies programs at Tel Aviv University