INTERVIEW - "Migration is not a force of nature that one is simply at the mercy of," says Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Her gentle voice contrasts with her razor-sharp statements: Political scientist Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of the most prominent critics of Islam and European immigration policy. In 1992, she fled Somalia to the Netherlands to escape the threat of forced marriage, and in 2003, she was elected to the Dutch parliament. Her fight against Islamism stems from her own experiences: Her genitals were mutilated in the name of religion, and she has been subjected to death threats from Islamists for years. In 2006, she moved to the USA and still needs bodyguards; even when she visits Switzerland, one is always nearby.

Ms. Hirsi Ali, for years you have painted a bleak picture of Europe, which stands idly by as it loses its identity and values ​​due to immigration and Islamization. Now, anti-immigration parties are gaining ground everywhere. Are we at a turning point?

I'm not painting a bleak picture, but rather offering constructive criticism. As a woman who fled to Europe to escape Islam, I'm sensitive to problems that hardly anyone dared to speak about for years. Election results in various countries show that more and more people are now recognizing the negative effects of borderless migration. The problem is that, despite this, hardly anything is happening. European politics is increasingly struggling with legitimacy; Switzerland is the laudable exception.

What do you mean by legitimacy?

Let's take Germany as an example. The elections resulted in a clear center-right majority. However, the AfD was excluded, so the country will once again have a center-left government. In the Netherlands, the government has just fallen. The reason here was the same: Geert Wilders' party won the 2023 elections, yet he was not given a clear mandate to govern. Whenever something went wrong, he was blamed, and all the positive developments were attributed to the coalition partners. This government, too, ultimately lacked legitimacy. We have this problem in many European countries: people are not getting what they voted for. In the USA, it is different: There, the people elected Trump and then received Trump.

You have praised Trump highly in the past.

My message is, above all, that elections and votes must be respected. I have been an American citizen since 2013. We elected Trump, so we have to live with the consequences. Switzerland is a great role model for me: Through direct democracy, the government's legitimacy is always guaranteed; the country holds fast to its traditions, its independence, its culture, its foundations. Other countries like Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Germany have abandoned this – and are paying a very high price for it.

They idealize Switzerland. Over 30 percent of its residents were not born in the country. A record high in Europe. We have our problems too, for example, in schools where the majority of children don't speak German at home.

Of course, not everything is perfect. But I think Switzerland is doing better than most European countries. My advice to Switzerland is: Please don't take in more people than you can handle; hold on to your unique characteristics and your independence! You mustn't forget where your prosperity comes from: from the hard work of your ancestors, from your Christian-influenced culture. Those who forget where they come from lose their moral compass.

In contrast to other countries, we in Switzerland are fortunate that the majority of migrants come from European countries and are therefore culturally similar to us.

This isn't luck; Switzerland deliberately chose this. Anyone who talks about immigration as luck or bad luck is acting as if it were a force of nature to which we are at the mercy. That's wrong. Immigration is the result of politics, and that's very important.

When you harshly criticized Islam 20 or 30 years ago, it was still a scandal. Today, it's more acceptable to point out the problematic aspects of this religion.

Europe has now had enough of its own experience; the problems can no longer be repressed or denied. I was in Switzerland in 2009 when a vote was held on a ban on minarets. The people decided for themselves what they would tolerate and what they wouldn't. I thought that was fantastic. I would have liked to see such a discussion in other countries as well. As the EU increasingly centralizes decisions in Brussels, the possibility of participation is becoming ever smaller. That is fatal, especially when it comes to issues of migration. Because it is now clear to most people: Islam, or rather Islamism, is incompatible with democracy and the European way of life.

Do you distinguish between Islam and Islamism? In the past, you have often been accused of not doing so, or of doing so too little.

If someone wants to pray, fast, or celebrate a religious wedding, that's not a problem, of course. Everyone should also dress as they wish. The crucial questions are different: Is Sharia above the law? Do Muslims want to impose their rules on others? Should a society abandon certain traditions and customs out of consideration? Every country should be able to decide for itself how to deal with these issues. I advocate a restrictive approach.

What's the argument against setting up prayer rooms for Muslims in schools, as is already done in some places? Or allowing minarets?

We're already seeing in many places in Europe what happens when you don't set boundaries. One could simply say: If you want to follow Sharia, that's fine, but just not here. Anyone who wants to live here is welcome, but they have to eat the menu that's offered.

You accuse the West of being weak and of not adequately defending its own values. Where do you see the causes of this weakness?

It's what's called "white guilt." White people, especially heterosexual men, are told they're privileged, they have all the power, all the structures are geared toward them. And everyone else is their victim. For some reason, the white man has bought into this narrative. Now everyone wants to be the white man's victim because victim status helps them enforce their demands. Rejecting a demand from a recognized victim group is very difficult.

With your refugee story, you could be at the top of the victim pyramid.

I never saw myself as a victim. I came to the Netherlands in 1992 and was very grateful that I was taken in, given food, and able to attend language courses. As soon as I was able to stand on my own two feet, I did so. Even in the asylum seekers' center, I did voluntary work without pay. As soon as I could, I worked as a cleaner. In 1994, two years after my arrival, I no longer received any social benefits and earned so much that I had to pay taxes. That's exactly how it should be. I am still infinitely grateful to the Netherlands for everything. Even though I no longer live there, I love the Netherlands with all my heart! That makes it all the more painful for me to see how this wonderful country has changed for the worse as a result of migration.

You are a critic of the social system.

I think it's wrong that someone can come here and receive welfare benefits for ten or twenty years, and then their children and grandchildren follow suit. That's not fair for those who work and pay taxes, but it's also not good for the recipients, who become lazy and feel useless. A welfare system should be there to help people in difficulty get back on their feet as quickly as possible, not as a permanent solution.

How quickly you integrated is fantastic: You learned the language immediately, and ten years after your arrival, you were elected to the national parliament. Not everyone is that talented.

Thank you, but I don't think my story is that unusual. Many migrants are willing to work hard. European countries should be able to choose who they accept and who they don't. Until now, anyone could come. This is devastating. Refugees are given accommodation, healthcare, and education without anything in return. All free of charge. And they aren't told where the money comes from. This only creates losers: among the locals and the migrants.

In your presentation at the Institute for Swiss Economic Policy in Lucerne, you called for: "Protect your borders!" With the strict regime you are calling for, you would probably never have been admitted.

Perhaps so. I advocate for a system in which the willingness to integrate is strictly monitored. Progress should be reviewed every six months. Those willing to learn the language, work, and thus contribute to society should be allowed to stay. Those who don't show this willingness must leave. I think that would be an honest and fair offer. Instead, we simply accept everyone who calls themselves a refugee because we think they're poor people and we feel sorry for them.

Is pity a wrong motive?

It's a terrible motive! It puts people in the role of victims. This also creates a sense of entitlement: Why does he drive an expensive car and I don't? Why does he have a nice apartment? Left-wing politicians then promise to remedy the situation and pose as saviors by generously distributing money. This creates a very unpleasant dynamic.

Do you still have contact with relatives or friends in Somalia?

No, none.

No contact for thirty years? Why?

Because they want to kill me.

Your relatives too?

They want to kill me because I am no longer a Muslim. They made that clear to me before I fled. That is the sad reality. For thirty years I have been trying to explain to people here what the world I come from is like. I have often been accused of exaggerating. Now hardly anyone says that anymore. Because that world has now arrived in Birmingham, Paris, and Stockholm. Anyone who opens their eyes can see it. There was a time when countless European heads of state and government invited me to tell them about my experiences. They listened to me, but they didn't put my thoughts into action.

That must be frustrating.

It's like talking to children. I have children now, too. You tell them not to do something, and then they do it anyway. And then you think: Maybe that's a good thing; they have to experience it themselves to learn. Europe is now experiencing this.

For twenty years, you've only been able to go out on the streets with bodyguards, and you still receive death threats from Islamists. Do you sometimes think it would have been better to remain silent?

For several years, I actually wished I hadn't said anything. But such thoughts are pointless; you can't undo it. I have to live with the threat; that's my reality. But the same reality applies, to a lesser extent, to all Europeans. We can't undo the misguided migration policy. Nevertheless, we shouldn't give up.

As a mother, the situation is probably even more stressful than before.

You have to take life as it is. I learned that from my grandmother, who lived as a nomad in the desert, without electricity or running water. She was at the mercy of the forces of nature: storms and floods, heat and drought. She accepted everything without complaint. My reality is much more luxurious than my grandmother's. Actually, I'm more concerned about other things.

About what?

We are seeing attacks on Jews everywhere, most recently in Boulder, Colorado, and in Washington. Jewish communities in the US and also in Europe are extremely worried. This is a very real and serious matter. Hurricane season begins on the East Coast in June, and families could once again lose their homes. Others fear an escalation of Russia's war of aggression. In comparison, my personal worries are small. People have always had children; you can raise them even under difficult conditions. I don't know if the question of how to raise your children is a luxury. For me, coming from Somalia, it certainly is.

Do you think you will be able to travel to Somalia again in the distant future?

I'm married to a Scotsman (the historian Niall Ferguson, editor's note). He says that Scotland used to be like Afghanistan. A few hundred years ago, that is. Maybe Somalia will become like Scotland someday. Then I can go back there.