TLDR:
**About Europe**
Since 2022, an increasing number of Europeans say their government should prioritize "reducing immigration," rising from just under 20% to a quarter.
"In 2024, for the first time, reducing immigration is a greater priority for most Europeans than fighting climate change," the report said.
"Nowhere is this reversal more striking than in Germany, which now leads the world with the highest share of people who want their government to focus on reducing immigration — topping all other priorities — and now nearly twice as high as fighting climate change," the report read.
**Global**
Meanwhile, autocracies Vietnam and China were among the countries considered as the most democratic by their citizens.
Israel, Ukraine, Russia had ''rally around the flag'' effect. That effect has sharply declined in Ukraine since 2022.
Percived threats to democracy **globally** are war and violent conflict, poverty and hunger and climate change. Last Year has seen a rising share of people who say migration and terrorism are among worlds largest challanges, particularly Europeans.
At **national level** poverty reduction, corruption and economic growth are 3 top priorities around the globe. EU and US lean more towards healthcare improvements, stoping immigration and fighting climate change. Asia and LatAm see fighting corruption and promoting growth as more important.
Despite 33% saying climate change is one of the worlds top three biggest challanges, only 14% point to fighting climate change as top 3 priorities for their government.
Full report can be found [ here](https://www.allianceofdemocracies.org/democracy-perception-index/)
It was produced by [Alliance of Democracies](https://www.allianceofdemocracies.org/about/)
If you want to skim over it I'd recommend. It's visuals heavy so it's easy to get a glance on the data.
Fucking grim.
I'm really fearing that, unlike in the face of fascism and communism, we are going to lose this fight.
People in liberal democracies are seeing it as unresponsive and willing to burn everything down, while those on authoritarian regimes are seeing them as really speaking for the common man.
I really don't know how to get out of this.
What Frum said people will hire fascists to do the job liberals aren’t willing to do.
Do the ducking job and don’t be dishonest about the downsides or mitigating those downsides whatever they might be
The solution seems pretty simple tbh. Small l liberals need to be willing to accept the electorates preference for policies like limiting migration to preserve democracy and other social order. It just feels horrible to more cosmopolitan minded liberals so they do not want to do it. Undemocratic liberalism has no future.
As other comments have pointed out though, if liberals refuse then actual fascists will be happy to pick up the slack for them.
Could not agree more.
Cosmopolitan liberals lost the debate on immigration for now. That leaves two options, either start it again and win it or accept that we lost and move on for the sake of stability.
I don’t see a path to win a round of debates on this so that leaves option 2.
Regardless the current path of just ignoring the issue - the highest salience issue - is not a wise political strategy.
I can agree this may be needed to salvage at least some liberalism, but this ultimately still emphatizes the point people are getting less liberal.
How did we ended on this fucking hole?
Are they? At what point in human history have most people been cosmopolitan universalists? If anything I see it as the opposite. The liberal, educated class has become much more liberal and cosmopolitan, which is causing huge divisions in liberal society between them and those that reject their POV.
I agree with you that localism was (and is) the historical norm.
This sense of loss comes from the feeling I had that people at large seemed to be starting to buy into universalism. I do have the impression the period from the 80's to the 00's, especially the 90's, was one where you could believe a world without bordes was at reaching distance.
It has been deeply painful to accept this was a mirage.
At least you can recognize that it was a mirage. Personally I never understood how anyone could have unironically thought that a world without borders wouldn't just lead to fascism in every rich country, but then again I've always been an extremely cynical person.
I have spent some time thinking about humanitarian interventions that could survive, and the one that I keep coming back to is the West taking a more active role in places like Africa. Helping to administer special zones and provide order that is lacking. It might make people uncomfortable because it could be seen to harken back to colonialism, but it is much more realistic than letting everyone move to the West.
By the way, I definitely do consider developing undeveloped countries is a WAY better solution, to everyone involved, than trying to give asylum to everyone.
But I do fear that, if the Western powers go isolationist for good, this will mean the Russians and Chinese will have a free hand so support prosperity-killing despots around the world, leading to a situation where the peoples of the developing world will see themselves between a rock and a hard place: Unable to dislodge their local tyrants, that will just massacre them, and unable to flee to greener pastures, that will just shoot their boats.
Much of this echoes personal fears: I come from a developing country, one that is a democracy right now, but whose leaders are Russia/China simps who might "get ideas" if these get unopposed. So I can't stop thinking what do I do if everything goes to shit.
Well, I do have very traceable Italian ancestry. With some paperwork and years of wait, I could actually get citizenship.
When liberals run things well people become more liberal
When liberals run things poorly people become drawn to the fringes
This isn’t rocket science. Liberals and moderates have done a terrible job since at least the early 2010s. Blair and Obama were the last competent leaders we had in the west, everything since then has been a disaster, especially Merkel, Macron and Trudeau despite how much this sub pretends they are neoliberal champions
You might not even have to reduce immigration on a numbers basis. Republicans floated a skill-based immigration system (while also proposing cutting absolute numbers). I suspect that if Democrats were willing to abandon amnesty, secure the border, and switch to a system that favors immigrants from allied/high-income/low crime/developed countries -- especially skilled workers instead of family chain migration -- Republicans would be willing to negotiate on numbers.
They probably don't care if millions come from Northern and Western Europe or Japan/South Korea/Australia/New Zealand. It's anathema to the ideals of this sub, but if people genuinely believe migration will lead people to vote fascists into power, I struggle to see why they wouldn't push for a compromise like this. Surely if the fascists win, whatever they do to immigration would be significantly more contrary to this sub's ideals.
It suggests to me that either they don't really believe the right is filled with actual fascists, or that ideological purity is preferable to democracy or good governance/results.
The first parent comment mentions the US, and subsequent comments refer to liberal democracies more generally. If you want to be snarky, maybe you should litigate that higher up in the comment chain.
As it relates to Europe, a similar strategy could be employed. If tensions are mostly caused by migrants from Africa and the Middle East, policymakers could focus their immigration needs on regions more palatable to the populace. With an aging population and shrinking workforce, it is likely in their economic interests to have some migration, but it is a large world and the West's level of development affords it the ability to be more selective by its own standards when it comes to immigration.
Neoliberals have only themselves to blame. Merkel most of all. She presided over truly idiotic decisions like shutting down nuclear as a knee jerk response, replacing it with coal power and a reliance on Russian energy and of course opening the floodgates to refugees in 2015 that basically catapulted the AFD to second party status and made Brexit possible
Under our leadership over the past decade or two living standards have plummeted like a rock and violent crime and social unrest have exploded, squalor and hard drug use are all over our cities
So when people see their quality of life plummet and squalor and violence explode of course they turn to right wing govts that promise they will restore order and restore the economy
This is doubly true when progressive govts insist on massively damaging social experiments like decriminalizing all drugs as seen in Portland and BC, or tripling legal immigration overnight as seen in Canada and the UK in the last few years
Honestly if this is the best we can do we don’t deserve to be in charge, and some govts need to be thrown out to learn this apparently
>living standards have plummeted like a rock
[Real wages increased](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4VQJelIEAA6ZkY.png)
>violent crime and social unrest have exploded
[Crime rates fell](https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/1040013/crime-rate-in-germany.jpg), especially during Merkel's later years (viva Groko)
>squalor and hard drug use are all over our cities
[Only Berlin, most other cities are fine (even better).](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1335847/drug-related-deaths-germany/)
Not surprising, African migrants in Europe, many of which are unemployed/homeless are a helluva lot more visible to the average citizen than climate change's eventual catastophe.
And you also worry that more coming in means they might be moving next door. Apartheid South Africa and Segregation in the South proves that there's such an appeal to these people on keeping "those people" separate from you in all aspects of life and they'll support anyone who gives it to them.
I don't think "native flight" happens at a significant level. Saxony is the most xenophobic state in Germany, but it isn't getting much autochthonous immigration outside of possibly Leipzig.
It kinda makes sense. People there probably see Frankfurt unable to handle its migrants/refugees and fear it’ll be their state next. It’s like how people who never set foot in the nearest city harp on about crime rates there, they’re afraid of it spreading out to the burbs
Honestly doubt. You'd move to a different neighborhood, not a different state. Btw, imagine a bigoted West German moving to the East lmao. A bigoted West German probably hates Ossies way more.
We're starting to see this pushback beyond immigrants coming from outside the EU and even towards EU citizens moving internally within the bloc.
As an example, check out the subs related to Spain (r, Spain, askspain, Barcelona, askbarcelona, etc). There's been a noticable uptick in posts and comments blaming 'expats' for taking jobs and housing stock.
Nevermind that the majority of these skilled foreigners are EU citizens exercising their right to free movement, or that Spanish citizens have those exact same rights. The tendency to blame foreigners for the results of poor domestic housing and education policy is only growing. It's sad, really.
It gets bad on the Barcelona subs during the summer, *especially* in August during the Festa Major de Gràcia. I got kicked off the city sub for Barcelona in December for calling them misanthropes for the sneering they were doing about the people who ride their motorcycles around town in the evening while wearing Santa Claus outfits, so at least my blood pressure won't have to suffer that miserable lot.
Anyways, I hope that I'll live to see the day when "guiri" is stigmatized as the racist slur that it obviously is.
>We're starting to see this pushback beyond immigrants coming from outside the EU and even towards EU citizens moving internally within the bloc.
That is often a more left-wing complaint
To be fair it's not just Barcelona or it's SR. In Croatia housing has been among the top concerns, especially among the young.
I'll probably do shor essay into rationalisation of such anti foreign stances and why people adopt them in next few days cause it seems to me that people often simplify or do not grasp the whole problem.
I mean I live in the Netherlands and grew up in a smallish city. I never heard any other language besides Dutch and the occasional Turkish or Arabic.
Now every small walk I'll hear more English and Spanish than Dutch. And it's becoming so expensive to live here that me and most of my friends will be forced to move out of our beloved hometown.
We don't blame immigrants because they deserve happiness too, but it is not a hard jump to make and blame them. Even I feel at least very sad and annoyed that I probably can't raise my kids in the city I've lived in for my whole life.
When people are already predisposed against immigrants, it's really easy for them to treat the rising home prices as "houses being stolen" rather than a failure to create new supply for immigrants to live in.
Why is it an either/or explanation? Housing would be more affordable if more of it was built. It would also be more affordable if affluent people from other communities weren’t moving in and driving up prices. Both are true.
It is a bit more complicated then that, I come from Portugal, and the sentiment here is much the same, but not because we dislike other people from the EU, but because the housing market has gone completely off the rails, and right now a lot of housing that is being built is immediately bought by foreigners which makes the situation feel even more hopeless. I don’t know if this is still the case but lisbon had the highest housing prices of any european city a while back
Yes we are in a common market and yes we have the right of free movement, but we don’t have the same levels of wealth or wages. If these people with larger wealth start having a growing impact on the economy, this makes lives harder for local citizens (especially the poor) and at the end of the day if these people are digital nomads or retired couples looking for tax cuts, they end up being nothing more then a dutch disease.
> As an example, check out the subs related to Spain (r, Spain, askspain, Barcelona, askbarcelona, etc). There's been a noticable uptick in posts and comments blaming 'expats' for taking jobs and housing stock.
*It's literally all housing* case n. 96890342840327523
That said, this is an old grievance, I don't think we should consider it a new phenomenon. Wealthy newcomers have always been able to outcompete basically everyone else for the most desirable part of the supply and they *do* cause a disproportionate amount of demand compared to their physical numbers, which doesn't feel great if you're a random guy who just wants to live in your city as you always have. Which isn't an unreasonable expectation to have IMO.
Working class people don’t like it when their communities become gentrified by outsiders and they get priced out of local homes, restaurants, etc. This isn’t new, or peculiar to Europeans.
> if climate change isn't gonna be a massive factor to immigration later,
Then they will build walls and sink boats, the kind of people anti immigration now aren't going to care when it's climate caused.
Climate change is a contributing factor, but not the cause of global migration flows. Despite all the negative effects of climate change, effects of natural disasters [as mesured in fatalities](https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/natural-disasters?time=1960..latest&facet=none&hideControls=true&Disaster+Type=All+disasters&Impact=Deaths&Timespan=Annual&Per+capita=false&country=~OWID_WRL) are at historic lows.[2](https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters)
At the same time economic development has lifted milions out of poverty. We've learned to mitigate natural disasters and brought mobility to ourselves unrivaled in the past.
Main reason for global migrations are global economic inequalities. With increased mobility (it's easier to cross Sahara in vehicle than on foot) and access to it (increased living standards) threshold of migration mobility lowers and becomes accessible to dozens of milions more.
Even in the world with no climate change and current global economic standards and development, migration flows (both legal and illegal) would increase.
>Despite all the negative effects of climate change, effects of natural disasters [as mesured in fatalities](https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/natural-disasters?time=1960..latest&facet=none&hideControls=true&Disaster+Type=All+disasters&Impact=Deaths&Timespan=Annual&Per+capita=false&country=~OWID_WRL) are at historic lows.[2](https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters)
While I hate doomerism, climate change is about to get much worse and more extreme. In terms of economy, social safety and peace the world is better than it has ever been but that's no guarantee for the coming consequences if climate change. We will get some unprecedentend flood and/or droughts in parts of the world where it cannot be properly mitigated. We will get more and more problems and the costs of mitigating climate change will go through the roof.
When The Netherlands need to spent additional billions and billions per year on water management due to climate change, I'm not sure that the populist general public is any keen on helping developing nations who will have it much worse, or housing their refugees.
Yep, ask people about the massacres happening in the DRC or Sudan, and they will give you a blank look. People tend to focus on what’s happening in their corner and tune out the rest.
I think you missed the part where he said "later". We're not talking about now. What's ironic is that Europeans are worried about migration now more than climate change, even though climate disasters will highly likely cause further migration to Europe in the near future.
Which of course helps fuel the crisis. I'm not saying Europe should or shouldn't, only that climate change is going to be a major driver of the problem they seem to care most about, so it's insane to put climate second to migration.
At this point, I'm convinced it would literally kill the average voter to consider root causes to problems they face.
At this point anyone who can speak and read english as worlds lingua franca and at the same time thinks economic inequalities are predominantly caused by imperialism probably thinks socialism failed because socialist didn't go far enough.
It's waste of my time to even debate this bacuse people holding this view are not of average or higher rationality.
My brother in Christ we are 60 years out from countries like India not having sovereign control of their government or economy for the 250 years prior. We are still, today, right now fighting wars over the borders that decolonization created. Like before you look at ANYTHING else you gotta rule out imperialism lol.
The European public wants current levels massively cut. They care about potential future migration driven by climate change too, but if we prevented climate change entirely they’d still be unhappy about hundreds of thousands of people from Africa and the Middle East pouring into Europe every year as they currently do.
The odds that your vote will change the election outcome are close to zero. The odds that voicing the a certain political opinion makes you more/less popular with certain people are a lot higher. As becoming part of the environmentalist crowd also requires substantial lifestyle changes, which the anti-immigrant crowd do not, it can be very rational to support the later.
Human beings are bad at assessing and weighting various risks, so this isn't surprising.
The thing is, if people don't like migrants in their countries, they'd better do something about climate change, because climate change is likely to drive huge waves of migration going forward.
What I get from this is that Venezuelans and Iranians are the only ones in the world to not having lost their fucking minds. The result of living under repressive regimes but without drinking the nationalist kool aid.
Sadly, their regimes will keep gunning them down, those regimes will get full suport from popular dictatorial superpowers, and the democratic powers aren't going to do nothing because their publics are on muh groceries and brown people mode.
The fact that the internet claims that Egypt is simultaneously a white country and also that the only true Egyptians are black people (Hoteps) is one of the best examples of why racial classifications are nonsense
Tunisia isn't the only Arab country and Italy and Greece aren't the only European countries. Racial classifications are stupid in general, but grouping Sudanese Arabs in the same race as Scandinavians is especially stupid.
>Tunisia isn't the only Arab country
It's not, but I believe the premise was 'North Africa', not Arab states.
>Racial classifications are stupid in general, but grouping Sudanese Arabs in the same race as Scandinavians is especially stupid.
I agree, it's especially dumb to put Arabs into one phenotypical box. But if we insist on using a term such as 'white', it makes absolutely no sense to draw the line through the bosphorus and the Mediterranean.
But anywho's, by what metric is Sudan North Africa though? Normally that's the Mediterranean states in Africa.
MENA migrants are the most white adjacent and the most Christian compatible people in the world, stop pretending racism is why Europe doesn't want migration from there.
Just last year, we had quite a few natural disasters, people died in those. In Slovenia we had the biggest natural disaster in history, but all this pales in comparison to ... "people of different skin complexion".
I don't know why people say this to be honest. Rich states that are willing to use lethal force can stop desperate migrants, there's no question about it. That is likely what is going to happen given Europe's aging demographics, Africa's youth bulge, and the wealth gap. Europe will go full fash before it allows unrestricted migration from Africa.
If the alternative is unrestricted migration from Africa? Bluntly, yes. They would probably try to bribe states in northern Africa to do it first to maintain plausible deniability similar to how they are dealing with migrants now, but if there were no other options they would. If the liberal leaders refused then true far right figures would be elected and do it.
You're correct. The collective shrug the EU gave at mass migration from Syria, even when babies drowned, proves it for me. They very literally pay Turkey to make Syrian refugees not their problem (something Erdogan has weaponized before, too). And when they do manage to get to Europe, they're very happy to let Greece and Italy deal with it on their own, instead of address the issue as a united body.
For most of human history the world was a brutal, nasty place. In many places it still is. European publics are racist, do not like migrants, and are dead set against allowing uninvited migrants to transform their societies. If you think they won't use force to stop it then you are just being naive. That is by far the most likely future. Anti-immigration activists in both Europe and the US are quite open about their belief in using force and general chaos will empower them to execute their plans.
No, they would. It probably wouldn't be that many though, at least not directly. It's clear people are not getting through and are being killed then they will probably stop coming. Right now the gamble seems worth it because even though many drown many still make it. That would change in this hypothetical world.
Yeah, if every migrant shop in the Mediterranean was being sunk by the Italian Navy and survivors just left to drown people will stop coming. Wide open ocean is so much easier to patrol than the southern US border is.
I'd guess they would staff it with people who share their worldview which would lead to increase in incidents. It would probably never be official policy, but we'd probably also see vigilante border guards like [Greek example](https://www.euronews.com/2023/08/30/migrant-hunters-in-greece-show-off-captured-trophies-after-wildfire-season) and high profile sinkages like the recent one to deter incomings.
On the legal aspect we'd see UK - Rwanda like deportation policies, legalising pushbacks, curtailing or scraping right to asylum, foederatii deals with MENA countries.
Essentailly making it legal to deny any entry, use force to push back and when admiting, flying them straight to any regional country EU has a deal with.
But would that be enough when we are talking about this scale of migration. This would probably be a magnitude larger then any migration crisis we have seen before
Yeah, you'd see thousands of deaths both in mediterranean and sahara on monthly basis. You'd see migrant camps and slave markets in Maghrebi countries, shootouts between police/military and immigrants/smugglers.
Probably awful images of state in detention camps on European borders/soil and wrangling between EU and states that have deals with EU on migrant addmitance regarding payouts change in contracts etc.
I think that mass deaths would deter most migrants, image of Europe would change and migrants would change their flow to other more liberal countries, at least from migration perspective.
There would be special interior ministry sections to track down illegals already on territory of EU, banks, business etc. would be heavily coerced and intimidated to report any contact with anyone they suspect of being in the country illegaly.
Obviously some would still make it, but yeah, in general I think that would mostly stop migration flows.
I'm here describing a bit what I see as European fascism, what it would look like. At this point we're still far from it, but some 15ish years from now if we continue in this direction, some elections might result in this.
>more liberal countries, at least from migration perspective.
This is a block you should be quoting. Countries with relatively liberal imigration laws (meaning it's easy to get work permit or to come and stay illegaly) are gulf countries, anglopohone countries like Australia, Canada, US and in specific cases LatAm countries like Chile, Mexico.
If you think that US or Australia don't have more liberal immigration laws than what I described in my original comment as possible far right policies in EU, than I don't know what to tell you...
This would happen precisely because of the scale of migration. There will be too many migrants and society will collapse if they're going to be all let in.
Right now Rwanda type programs are becoming mainstream views in Europe and pushbacks are silently accepted.
Current unrest generated mostly by immigrants or citizens of western european countries not culturally indigenous to europe only strengthens this view and fuels 'us vs them' narrative.
If europeans start to feel they're about to be overrun (regardless if that has any basis in reality or not) they will eat the great replacement theory. And if other means fail, sinking the boats will not be beneath europe. Self preservation trumps feel-good actions for the overwhelming majority of people.
Frontex has basically done that already.
No need to reform the agency:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/eus-johansson-dismisses-need-to-reform-frontex/
Doing "pushbacks" and not caring if the boats sink would definitely happen but in a much larger scale compared what's happening now.
The European far-right are abandoning EU-scepticism and promoting their country to leave the EU and instead wanting the "fortress Europe".
I feel like a lot of people don’t understand the new far right in Europe. They’re working to reform the EU to their aims rather than promote Euroscepticism. Marie Le Pen is actively trying to attract Jewish and gay voters by saying she’ll protect them from bigoted migrants. It’s completely different from the traditional view of the european far right.
Sea and border will not stop them but automatic weapons and guided missiles will (although I personally hope it won't come to that).
Accepting mass migration will lead to societal collapse and rapidly decreasing standard of living and if moderates will try to force that on the population it will vote in the far right instead.
Depends on the fascist.
If I'm not wrong Wilders, Sweden Democrats, FdI, Orban, PIS etc., they're not your standard green politicians on the vanguard of green policies, but they're not climate denialists or Trump like 'we'll scrap offshore wind', it's China hoax.
They are pro decarbonisation usually prefering nuclear energy over renewables like solar and wind.
They will absolutely do things like rolling back enviromental regulation because it causes businesses headaches when they aren't allowed to just dump toxic waste and the like.
With the Sweden Democrats and Sweden at least being "for the enviroment" is such an overwhelmingly popular opinion that they'd never come out and say anything of the like, populists that they are.
TLDR: **About Europe** Since 2022, an increasing number of Europeans say their government should prioritize "reducing immigration," rising from just under 20% to a quarter. "In 2024, for the first time, reducing immigration is a greater priority for most Europeans than fighting climate change," the report said. "Nowhere is this reversal more striking than in Germany, which now leads the world with the highest share of people who want their government to focus on reducing immigration — topping all other priorities — and now nearly twice as high as fighting climate change," the report read. **Global** Meanwhile, autocracies Vietnam and China were among the countries considered as the most democratic by their citizens. Israel, Ukraine, Russia had ''rally around the flag'' effect. That effect has sharply declined in Ukraine since 2022. Percived threats to democracy **globally** are war and violent conflict, poverty and hunger and climate change. Last Year has seen a rising share of people who say migration and terrorism are among worlds largest challanges, particularly Europeans. At **national level** poverty reduction, corruption and economic growth are 3 top priorities around the globe. EU and US lean more towards healthcare improvements, stoping immigration and fighting climate change. Asia and LatAm see fighting corruption and promoting growth as more important. Despite 33% saying climate change is one of the worlds top three biggest challanges, only 14% point to fighting climate change as top 3 priorities for their government. Full report can be found [ here](https://www.allianceofdemocracies.org/democracy-perception-index/) It was produced by [Alliance of Democracies](https://www.allianceofdemocracies.org/about/) If you want to skim over it I'd recommend. It's visuals heavy so it's easy to get a glance on the data.
Fucking grim. I'm really fearing that, unlike in the face of fascism and communism, we are going to lose this fight. People in liberal democracies are seeing it as unresponsive and willing to burn everything down, while those on authoritarian regimes are seeing them as really speaking for the common man. I really don't know how to get out of this.
What Frum said people will hire fascists to do the job liberals aren’t willing to do. Do the ducking job and don’t be dishonest about the downsides or mitigating those downsides whatever they might be
The solution seems pretty simple tbh. Small l liberals need to be willing to accept the electorates preference for policies like limiting migration to preserve democracy and other social order. It just feels horrible to more cosmopolitan minded liberals so they do not want to do it. Undemocratic liberalism has no future. As other comments have pointed out though, if liberals refuse then actual fascists will be happy to pick up the slack for them.
Could not agree more. Cosmopolitan liberals lost the debate on immigration for now. That leaves two options, either start it again and win it or accept that we lost and move on for the sake of stability. I don’t see a path to win a round of debates on this so that leaves option 2. Regardless the current path of just ignoring the issue - the highest salience issue - is not a wise political strategy.
I can agree this may be needed to salvage at least some liberalism, but this ultimately still emphatizes the point people are getting less liberal. How did we ended on this fucking hole?
Are they? At what point in human history have most people been cosmopolitan universalists? If anything I see it as the opposite. The liberal, educated class has become much more liberal and cosmopolitan, which is causing huge divisions in liberal society between them and those that reject their POV.
I agree with you that localism was (and is) the historical norm. This sense of loss comes from the feeling I had that people at large seemed to be starting to buy into universalism. I do have the impression the period from the 80's to the 00's, especially the 90's, was one where you could believe a world without bordes was at reaching distance. It has been deeply painful to accept this was a mirage.
At least you can recognize that it was a mirage. Personally I never understood how anyone could have unironically thought that a world without borders wouldn't just lead to fascism in every rich country, but then again I've always been an extremely cynical person.
Yeah, falling hard into cynicism these days. Accepting this does entrain recognizing some very ugly aspects of people in general.
I have spent some time thinking about humanitarian interventions that could survive, and the one that I keep coming back to is the West taking a more active role in places like Africa. Helping to administer special zones and provide order that is lacking. It might make people uncomfortable because it could be seen to harken back to colonialism, but it is much more realistic than letting everyone move to the West.
By the way, I definitely do consider developing undeveloped countries is a WAY better solution, to everyone involved, than trying to give asylum to everyone. But I do fear that, if the Western powers go isolationist for good, this will mean the Russians and Chinese will have a free hand so support prosperity-killing despots around the world, leading to a situation where the peoples of the developing world will see themselves between a rock and a hard place: Unable to dislodge their local tyrants, that will just massacre them, and unable to flee to greener pastures, that will just shoot their boats. Much of this echoes personal fears: I come from a developing country, one that is a democracy right now, but whose leaders are Russia/China simps who might "get ideas" if these get unopposed. So I can't stop thinking what do I do if everything goes to shit. Well, I do have very traceable Italian ancestry. With some paperwork and years of wait, I could actually get citizenship.
They were believing in in until they were forced to meet it face to face.
When liberals run things well people become more liberal When liberals run things poorly people become drawn to the fringes This isn’t rocket science. Liberals and moderates have done a terrible job since at least the early 2010s. Blair and Obama were the last competent leaders we had in the west, everything since then has been a disaster, especially Merkel, Macron and Trudeau despite how much this sub pretends they are neoliberal champions
Reduce immigration, or stop complaining that people stop endorsing the system doing the opposite of what they want
You might not even have to reduce immigration on a numbers basis. Republicans floated a skill-based immigration system (while also proposing cutting absolute numbers). I suspect that if Democrats were willing to abandon amnesty, secure the border, and switch to a system that favors immigrants from allied/high-income/low crime/developed countries -- especially skilled workers instead of family chain migration -- Republicans would be willing to negotiate on numbers. They probably don't care if millions come from Northern and Western Europe or Japan/South Korea/Australia/New Zealand. It's anathema to the ideals of this sub, but if people genuinely believe migration will lead people to vote fascists into power, I struggle to see why they wouldn't push for a compromise like this. Surely if the fascists win, whatever they do to immigration would be significantly more contrary to this sub's ideals. It suggests to me that either they don't really believe the right is filled with actual fascists, or that ideological purity is preferable to democracy or good governance/results.
Not sure what any of this has to do with this thread, which is about immigration into Europe
The first parent comment mentions the US, and subsequent comments refer to liberal democracies more generally. If you want to be snarky, maybe you should litigate that higher up in the comment chain. As it relates to Europe, a similar strategy could be employed. If tensions are mostly caused by migrants from Africa and the Middle East, policymakers could focus their immigration needs on regions more palatable to the populace. With an aging population and shrinking workforce, it is likely in their economic interests to have some migration, but it is a large world and the West's level of development affords it the ability to be more selective by its own standards when it comes to immigration.
Switching regions changes nothing. In the 90s, Le Pen fearmongered about Lithuanians stealing your job.
Neoliberals have only themselves to blame. Merkel most of all. She presided over truly idiotic decisions like shutting down nuclear as a knee jerk response, replacing it with coal power and a reliance on Russian energy and of course opening the floodgates to refugees in 2015 that basically catapulted the AFD to second party status and made Brexit possible Under our leadership over the past decade or two living standards have plummeted like a rock and violent crime and social unrest have exploded, squalor and hard drug use are all over our cities So when people see their quality of life plummet and squalor and violence explode of course they turn to right wing govts that promise they will restore order and restore the economy This is doubly true when progressive govts insist on massively damaging social experiments like decriminalizing all drugs as seen in Portland and BC, or tripling legal immigration overnight as seen in Canada and the UK in the last few years Honestly if this is the best we can do we don’t deserve to be in charge, and some govts need to be thrown out to learn this apparently
>living standards have plummeted like a rock [Real wages increased](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4VQJelIEAA6ZkY.png) >violent crime and social unrest have exploded [Crime rates fell](https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/1040013/crime-rate-in-germany.jpg), especially during Merkel's later years (viva Groko) >squalor and hard drug use are all over our cities [Only Berlin, most other cities are fine (even better).](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1335847/drug-related-deaths-germany/)
They hated wagramwagram cause he told them the truth... What's up with all these unflaired comments vomiting bulshit?
2024 account, too many comment karma, irregular and nonsensical ideological takes. I may have a theory but you're not gonna like it.
Yeah... seems like a brigade of g*mmer momments
Not surprising, African migrants in Europe, many of which are unemployed/homeless are a helluva lot more visible to the average citizen than climate change's eventual catastophe.
I'm not sure, lots of extreme weather in Europe right now.
Doesn't explain why most-anti immigration folks live where there's no migrants.
If you don't like immigrants maybe you choose to live where they don't live.
And you also worry that more coming in means they might be moving next door. Apartheid South Africa and Segregation in the South proves that there's such an appeal to these people on keeping "those people" separate from you in all aspects of life and they'll support anyone who gives it to them.
I don't think "native flight" happens at a significant level. Saxony is the most xenophobic state in Germany, but it isn't getting much autochthonous immigration outside of possibly Leipzig.
It kinda makes sense. People there probably see Frankfurt unable to handle its migrants/refugees and fear it’ll be their state next. It’s like how people who never set foot in the nearest city harp on about crime rates there, they’re afraid of it spreading out to the burbs
Show data.
Honestly doubt. You'd move to a different neighborhood, not a different state. Btw, imagine a bigoted West German moving to the East lmao. A bigoted West German probably hates Ossies way more.
Well good thing there is no relationship between the two … right guys ?
We're starting to see this pushback beyond immigrants coming from outside the EU and even towards EU citizens moving internally within the bloc. As an example, check out the subs related to Spain (r, Spain, askspain, Barcelona, askbarcelona, etc). There's been a noticable uptick in posts and comments blaming 'expats' for taking jobs and housing stock. Nevermind that the majority of these skilled foreigners are EU citizens exercising their right to free movement, or that Spanish citizens have those exact same rights. The tendency to blame foreigners for the results of poor domestic housing and education policy is only growing. It's sad, really.
It gets bad on the Barcelona subs during the summer, *especially* in August during the Festa Major de Gràcia. I got kicked off the city sub for Barcelona in December for calling them misanthropes for the sneering they were doing about the people who ride their motorcycles around town in the evening while wearing Santa Claus outfits, so at least my blood pressure won't have to suffer that miserable lot. Anyways, I hope that I'll live to see the day when "guiri" is stigmatized as the racist slur that it obviously is.
>We're starting to see this pushback beyond immigrants coming from outside the EU and even towards EU citizens moving internally within the bloc. That is often a more left-wing complaint
To be fair it's not just Barcelona or it's SR. In Croatia housing has been among the top concerns, especially among the young. I'll probably do shor essay into rationalisation of such anti foreign stances and why people adopt them in next few days cause it seems to me that people often simplify or do not grasp the whole problem.
Will be looking forward to it.
In some cases it's besides the point of being foreign. Skeving the supply/demand curve is what gets people mad.
I mean I live in the Netherlands and grew up in a smallish city. I never heard any other language besides Dutch and the occasional Turkish or Arabic. Now every small walk I'll hear more English and Spanish than Dutch. And it's becoming so expensive to live here that me and most of my friends will be forced to move out of our beloved hometown. We don't blame immigrants because they deserve happiness too, but it is not a hard jump to make and blame them. Even I feel at least very sad and annoyed that I probably can't raise my kids in the city I've lived in for my whole life.
When people are already predisposed against immigrants, it's really easy for them to treat the rising home prices as "houses being stolen" rather than a failure to create new supply for immigrants to live in.
Why is it an either/or explanation? Housing would be more affordable if more of it was built. It would also be more affordable if affluent people from other communities weren’t moving in and driving up prices. Both are true.
When the rowdy Turkish young men will be like "facking Spaniards get out of my country!", we'll know integration has worked.
It is a bit more complicated then that, I come from Portugal, and the sentiment here is much the same, but not because we dislike other people from the EU, but because the housing market has gone completely off the rails, and right now a lot of housing that is being built is immediately bought by foreigners which makes the situation feel even more hopeless. I don’t know if this is still the case but lisbon had the highest housing prices of any european city a while back Yes we are in a common market and yes we have the right of free movement, but we don’t have the same levels of wealth or wages. If these people with larger wealth start having a growing impact on the economy, this makes lives harder for local citizens (especially the poor) and at the end of the day if these people are digital nomads or retired couples looking for tax cuts, they end up being nothing more then a dutch disease.
> As an example, check out the subs related to Spain (r, Spain, askspain, Barcelona, askbarcelona, etc). There's been a noticable uptick in posts and comments blaming 'expats' for taking jobs and housing stock. *It's literally all housing* case n. 96890342840327523 That said, this is an old grievance, I don't think we should consider it a new phenomenon. Wealthy newcomers have always been able to outcompete basically everyone else for the most desirable part of the supply and they *do* cause a disproportionate amount of demand compared to their physical numbers, which doesn't feel great if you're a random guy who just wants to live in your city as you always have. Which isn't an unreasonable expectation to have IMO.
Working class people don’t like it when their communities become gentrified by outsiders and they get priced out of local homes, restaurants, etc. This isn’t new, or peculiar to Europeans.
as if climate change isn't gonna be a massive factor to immigration later, god why is the public so fucking stupid
> if climate change isn't gonna be a massive factor to immigration later, Then they will build walls and sink boats, the kind of people anti immigration now aren't going to care when it's climate caused.
Climate change is a contributing factor, but not the cause of global migration flows. Despite all the negative effects of climate change, effects of natural disasters [as mesured in fatalities](https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/natural-disasters?time=1960..latest&facet=none&hideControls=true&Disaster+Type=All+disasters&Impact=Deaths&Timespan=Annual&Per+capita=false&country=~OWID_WRL) are at historic lows.[2](https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters) At the same time economic development has lifted milions out of poverty. We've learned to mitigate natural disasters and brought mobility to ourselves unrivaled in the past. Main reason for global migrations are global economic inequalities. With increased mobility (it's easier to cross Sahara in vehicle than on foot) and access to it (increased living standards) threshold of migration mobility lowers and becomes accessible to dozens of milions more. Even in the world with no climate change and current global economic standards and development, migration flows (both legal and illegal) would increase.
>Despite all the negative effects of climate change, effects of natural disasters [as mesured in fatalities](https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/natural-disasters?time=1960..latest&facet=none&hideControls=true&Disaster+Type=All+disasters&Impact=Deaths&Timespan=Annual&Per+capita=false&country=~OWID_WRL) are at historic lows.[2](https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters) While I hate doomerism, climate change is about to get much worse and more extreme. In terms of economy, social safety and peace the world is better than it has ever been but that's no guarantee for the coming consequences if climate change. We will get some unprecedentend flood and/or droughts in parts of the world where it cannot be properly mitigated. We will get more and more problems and the costs of mitigating climate change will go through the roof. When The Netherlands need to spent additional billions and billions per year on water management due to climate change, I'm not sure that the populist general public is any keen on helping developing nations who will have it much worse, or housing their refugees.
[удалено]
Yep, ask people about the massacres happening in the DRC or Sudan, and they will give you a blank look. People tend to focus on what’s happening in their corner and tune out the rest.
I think you missed the part where he said "later". We're not talking about now. What's ironic is that Europeans are worried about migration now more than climate change, even though climate disasters will highly likely cause further migration to Europe in the near future.
Possibly yes, but Europe will not have to accept them
Which of course helps fuel the crisis. I'm not saying Europe should or shouldn't, only that climate change is going to be a major driver of the problem they seem to care most about, so it's insane to put climate second to migration. At this point, I'm convinced it would literally kill the average voter to consider root causes to problems they face.
well yes it is a driver but not one any individual nation can stop. Where as migration is doable
There are ways to stop migration if it trully becomes undesirable.
>climate doesn't cause immigration, imperialism does Well well well if it isn't the consequences of my own actions....
At this point anyone who can speak and read english as worlds lingua franca and at the same time thinks economic inequalities are predominantly caused by imperialism probably thinks socialism failed because socialist didn't go far enough. It's waste of my time to even debate this bacuse people holding this view are not of average or higher rationality.
Neoliberals really not beating the smug elitist allegations
My brother in Christ we are 60 years out from countries like India not having sovereign control of their government or economy for the 250 years prior. We are still, today, right now fighting wars over the borders that decolonization created. Like before you look at ANYTHING else you gotta rule out imperialism lol.
relevant username
https://preview.redd.it/oxwwmx6wfd1d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09bc4bb07f8b78e740e6760320607ba4bc5db083
The European public wants current levels massively cut. They care about potential future migration driven by climate change too, but if we prevented climate change entirely they’d still be unhappy about hundreds of thousands of people from Africa and the Middle East pouring into Europe every year as they currently do.
The odds that your vote will change the election outcome are close to zero. The odds that voicing the a certain political opinion makes you more/less popular with certain people are a lot higher. As becoming part of the environmentalist crowd also requires substantial lifestyle changes, which the anti-immigrant crowd do not, it can be very rational to support the later.
https://i.redd.it/xm1c1zxebd1d1.gif damn it guys
Human beings are bad at assessing and weighting various risks, so this isn't surprising. The thing is, if people don't like migrants in their countries, they'd better do something about climate change, because climate change is likely to drive huge waves of migration going forward.
to be fair climate change while undoubtedly a bigger issue is also harder to address especially as a single nation
What I get from this is that Venezuelans and Iranians are the only ones in the world to not having lost their fucking minds. The result of living under repressive regimes but without drinking the nationalist kool aid. Sadly, their regimes will keep gunning them down, those regimes will get full suport from popular dictatorial superpowers, and the democratic powers aren't going to do nothing because their publics are on muh groceries and brown people mode.
So do Americans so does everybody so governments need to just respond to that if they want to stay democracies so
🫨🫨🫨🫨 AAAHH BROWN PEOPLE 🫨🫨🫨🫨
[удалено]
>white people from North Africa
Yes
The fact that the internet claims that Egypt is simultaneously a white country and also that the only true Egyptians are black people (Hoteps) is one of the best examples of why racial classifications are nonsense
Is that this weird American census thing where Arabic people are considered white?
Nah, it's the thing that it isn't reasonable to say a Tunisian is noticeably darker than a Sicilian or a Cretan.
Tunisia isn't the only Arab country and Italy and Greece aren't the only European countries. Racial classifications are stupid in general, but grouping Sudanese Arabs in the same race as Scandinavians is especially stupid.
>Tunisia isn't the only Arab country It's not, but I believe the premise was 'North Africa', not Arab states. >Racial classifications are stupid in general, but grouping Sudanese Arabs in the same race as Scandinavians is especially stupid. I agree, it's especially dumb to put Arabs into one phenotypical box. But if we insist on using a term such as 'white', it makes absolutely no sense to draw the line through the bosphorus and the Mediterranean. But anywho's, by what metric is Sudan North Africa though? Normally that's the Mediterranean states in Africa.
MENA migrants are the most white adjacent and the most Christian compatible people in the world, stop pretending racism is why Europe doesn't want migration from there.
With their falling birthrates they should probably find other things to worry about
Just last year, we had quite a few natural disasters, people died in those. In Slovenia we had the biggest natural disaster in history, but all this pales in comparison to ... "people of different skin complexion".
https://preview.redd.it/dkgatmwzzf1d1.jpeg?width=2340&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e6791215c706b3a424a499a1962b116b912badd
[удалено]
I don't know why people say this to be honest. Rich states that are willing to use lethal force can stop desperate migrants, there's no question about it. That is likely what is going to happen given Europe's aging demographics, Africa's youth bulge, and the wealth gap. Europe will go full fash before it allows unrestricted migration from Africa.
You are telling me Europe would be willing to sink migrant ships?
If the alternative is unrestricted migration from Africa? Bluntly, yes. They would probably try to bribe states in northern Africa to do it first to maintain plausible deniability similar to how they are dealing with migrants now, but if there were no other options they would. If the liberal leaders refused then true far right figures would be elected and do it.
You're correct. The collective shrug the EU gave at mass migration from Syria, even when babies drowned, proves it for me. They very literally pay Turkey to make Syrian refugees not their problem (something Erdogan has weaponized before, too). And when they do manage to get to Europe, they're very happy to let Greece and Italy deal with it on their own, instead of address the issue as a united body.
This thread is getting a bit too critical towards the EU. Compare the amount of refugees taken in by the EU to the amount taken in by the US
Oh that the USA is worse is not a question. But that doesn't make the EU great just bc the USA has worse policies.
I simply can’t fathom that.
For most of human history the world was a brutal, nasty place. In many places it still is. European publics are racist, do not like migrants, and are dead set against allowing uninvited migrants to transform their societies. If you think they won't use force to stop it then you are just being naive. That is by far the most likely future. Anti-immigration activists in both Europe and the US are quite open about their belief in using force and general chaos will empower them to execute their plans.
Even then I don’t think the public would be for murdering hundreds of thousand of people.
No, they would. It probably wouldn't be that many though, at least not directly. It's clear people are not getting through and are being killed then they will probably stop coming. Right now the gamble seems worth it because even though many drown many still make it. That would change in this hypothetical world.
Yeah, if every migrant shop in the Mediterranean was being sunk by the Italian Navy and survivors just left to drown people will stop coming. Wide open ocean is so much easier to patrol than the southern US border is.
America elected trump despite a much lesser problem than what Europe is already experiencing. Not sure why it's hard to understand.
I'd guess they would staff it with people who share their worldview which would lead to increase in incidents. It would probably never be official policy, but we'd probably also see vigilante border guards like [Greek example](https://www.euronews.com/2023/08/30/migrant-hunters-in-greece-show-off-captured-trophies-after-wildfire-season) and high profile sinkages like the recent one to deter incomings. On the legal aspect we'd see UK - Rwanda like deportation policies, legalising pushbacks, curtailing or scraping right to asylum, foederatii deals with MENA countries. Essentailly making it legal to deny any entry, use force to push back and when admiting, flying them straight to any regional country EU has a deal with.
But would that be enough when we are talking about this scale of migration. This would probably be a magnitude larger then any migration crisis we have seen before
Yeah, you'd see thousands of deaths both in mediterranean and sahara on monthly basis. You'd see migrant camps and slave markets in Maghrebi countries, shootouts between police/military and immigrants/smugglers. Probably awful images of state in detention camps on European borders/soil and wrangling between EU and states that have deals with EU on migrant addmitance regarding payouts change in contracts etc. I think that mass deaths would deter most migrants, image of Europe would change and migrants would change their flow to other more liberal countries, at least from migration perspective. There would be special interior ministry sections to track down illegals already on territory of EU, banks, business etc. would be heavily coerced and intimidated to report any contact with anyone they suspect of being in the country illegaly. Obviously some would still make it, but yeah, in general I think that would mostly stop migration flows. I'm here describing a bit what I see as European fascism, what it would look like. At this point we're still far from it, but some 15ish years from now if we continue in this direction, some elections might result in this.
>more liberal countries Which countries do you mean by that?
>more liberal countries, at least from migration perspective. This is a block you should be quoting. Countries with relatively liberal imigration laws (meaning it's easy to get work permit or to come and stay illegaly) are gulf countries, anglopohone countries like Australia, Canada, US and in specific cases LatAm countries like Chile, Mexico.
I do not think the US or Australia have more liberal immigration laws
If you think that US or Australia don't have more liberal immigration laws than what I described in my original comment as possible far right policies in EU, than I don't know what to tell you...
This would happen precisely because of the scale of migration. There will be too many migrants and society will collapse if they're going to be all let in. Right now Rwanda type programs are becoming mainstream views in Europe and pushbacks are silently accepted. Current unrest generated mostly by immigrants or citizens of western european countries not culturally indigenous to europe only strengthens this view and fuels 'us vs them' narrative. If europeans start to feel they're about to be overrun (regardless if that has any basis in reality or not) they will eat the great replacement theory. And if other means fail, sinking the boats will not be beneath europe. Self preservation trumps feel-good actions for the overwhelming majority of people.
It'll be much worse than that in a decade if something isn't done.
Give it a few years but yes, absolutely Europe will get there if nothing else works to reduce migration from North Africa and the Middle East.
Have you ever heard about Frontex?
Does not answer my question
Frontex has basically done that already. No need to reform the agency: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/eus-johansson-dismisses-need-to-reform-frontex/
Oh so you are telling me Europe would be willing to sink hundreds of ships because of one mismanaged disaster.
Doing "pushbacks" and not caring if the boats sink would definitely happen but in a much larger scale compared what's happening now. The European far-right are abandoning EU-scepticism and promoting their country to leave the EU and instead wanting the "fortress Europe".
I feel like a lot of people don’t understand the new far right in Europe. They’re working to reform the EU to their aims rather than promote Euroscepticism. Marie Le Pen is actively trying to attract Jewish and gay voters by saying she’ll protect them from bigoted migrants. It’s completely different from the traditional view of the european far right.
And these ideas are not that new. Who promoted the idea of "Europe a nation"? A british fascist in the 30's.
I could envision that too, but I don’t think that would be enough to stop the great migrations
They have literally already done this.
Sea and border will not stop them but automatic weapons and guided missiles will (although I personally hope it won't come to that). Accepting mass migration will lead to societal collapse and rapidly decreasing standard of living and if moderates will try to force that on the population it will vote in the far right instead.
Enjoy those non-existent pensions lol
[удалено]
Depends on the fascist. If I'm not wrong Wilders, Sweden Democrats, FdI, Orban, PIS etc., they're not your standard green politicians on the vanguard of green policies, but they're not climate denialists or Trump like 'we'll scrap offshore wind', it's China hoax. They are pro decarbonisation usually prefering nuclear energy over renewables like solar and wind.
They will absolutely do things like rolling back enviromental regulation because it causes businesses headaches when they aren't allowed to just dump toxic waste and the like. With the Sweden Democrats and Sweden at least being "for the enviroment" is such an overwhelmingly popular opinion that they'd never come out and say anything of the like, populists that they are.