New York Times Bestselling Author and Atlantic Council Nonresident Senior Fellow Max Brooks delivered a blunt assessment of European immigration during Friday’s online “Overtime” segment of HBO’s “Real Time.”

Brooks argued that guilt over colonial history has heavily influenced immigration policy across Western Europe.

Brooks said, “the problem is guilty honkies. It’s the same problem here. It’s the problem over there. In Western Europe, they are crushed by their guilt of colonization.”

He suggested that similar guilt also shapes the immigration debate in the United States.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

Before making that provocative declaration, Brooks stressed that immigration in Europe is “very different” from immigration in America.

His reasoning focused on the historical makeup of European nations and the powerful welfare systems that often greet arriving migrants.

Brooks noted that many European countries were formed around indigenous national populations with deep cultural roots.

That reality, he argued, creates a fundamentally different immigration environment from the American system, which has long expected newcomers to enter a diverse national framework.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

He also pointed to Europe’s welfare state as a key dividing line.

According to Brooks, immigrants in European nations are more likely to draw support from expansive government programs, while immigrants in America are more commonly pushed into employment and economic participation.

That difference matters because work often serves as a practical engine of assimilation.

Brooks argued that immigrants in the United States assimilate in part because they work, interact with communities, and become participants in the broader economy.

In Europe, he said, generous welfare structures can weaken that process.

When government benefits replace employment and integration, taxpayers are left carrying the bill while cultural divisions remain unresolved, a familiar consequence of elite compassion financed by somebody else.

Brooks also warned that Europe’s political response to immigration could become dangerous.

He said that when European countries move to the political right, they have a historical tendency to move much further in that direction than American voters might expect.

His warning reflected concern about a severe political backlash as citizens grow frustrated with immigration and welfare policy.

Governments that refuse to address public anxiety can create the conditions for sharper and more dramatic political movements.

Brooks then drew a clear distinction between Eastern Europe and Western Europe, arguing that their different historical experiences produce very different attitudes about migration and national responsibility.

He said, “There’s also a huge difference between Eastern Europe and Western Europe, and I’ve seen this in my think tank work going there. And I can tell you, I’ve said this before, the problem is guilty honkies. It’s the same problem here. It’s the problem over there. In Western Europe, they are crushed by their guilt of colonization. In Eastern Europe, they were the colonized, right? At no point in history, in a tropical country, did someone say, oh, God, run, here comes the Czech. So, therefore, they have no guilt. They say, we take care of our poor people first before we open up. And that’s a huge difference in Western Europe and Eastern Europe.”

WATCH:

Brooks portrayed Eastern European nations as countries with little reason to accept collective blame for Western colonialism.

Since many of those nations experienced foreign domination themselves, they do not approach immigration policy through the same lens of inherited guilt.

Western European governments, by contrast, have frequently wrestled with the legacy of colonial rule.

Brooks suggested that this guilt has left political leaders reluctant to establish tougher boundaries, even when voters express concern about migration, integration, and strained public services.

His comparison also highlighted a basic dispute about government priorities.

Eastern European nations, as Brooks described them, are more willing to care for their own struggling citizens before opening public systems to additional migrants from abroad.

The American situation remains distinct because employment can pull immigrants toward assimilation more effectively than European welfare programs.

Still, Brooks argued that the same politics of guilt operate in both places, shaping debates that elected officials often seem more comfortable moralizing about than solving.

Brooks’ remarks offered an unusually candid description of the cultural forces behind Western immigration policy.

Whether political elites appreciate the phrasing or not, his argument was clear: guilt, welfare incentives, and historical memory are driving policy choices with serious consequences.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.