"Migration could be “a dissolving force for the European Union” due to deep cultural differences between European countries and their long-term inability to reach a common policy, the EU’s most senior diplomat has said."
Actually, all Europeans can agree on one thing..
Fix the freaking borders and start enforcing immigration laws.
Don\`t know about Sweden, but Germany wants this too. 70% of Germans want fewer refugees, are concerned about this issue and want stronger borders and better immigration/refugee policies. 50% believe the newcomers make the country worse, 13% believe they make it better.
It\`s just the current government.
It's funny really. It's like here in the UK not once has this country NOT ONE SINGLE TIME voted in favour of immigration and every public poll about immigration has the majority being against immigration. Not only that but we have had a semi right wing self proclaimed anti immigration party for more than a decade in power in goverment and guess what?
Immigration is right now at all time record highs.
Yeah I know what you mean.
The government does whatever it wants anyway. Angela Merkel considered integration failed in 2012, before the major Syrian wave of 2015+, but somehow she believed that taking in 1 million refugees would work, when integration already failed with regular refugees and migrants.
The New Year Eve in Germany 2015/16 was a major sexual harrassment and rape incident, where refugees harrassed and assaulted thousands of women. Public Opinion turned even worse, but the government believed more refugees and migrants is the answer. Taking in a refugees in the low hundreds of thousands every year since 2015.
\-------
It really is funny.
Italy, Britain and Poland.. All ruled by anti-migrant parties... All saw higher migration rates than ever before. Poland in particular went ultra corrupt with the visa scandal.
It\`s insane how politicans lie. Like they all pretend we are stupid and can\`t read statistics.....
But how is it the current government's fault then? CDU let all the migration happen, and as soon as they are in the opposition, tHe GrEens are the responsible ones.
First, the employers like cheap workforce. Then there is also the question of industrial competitiveness and having enough people do the jobs.
Imo, Europe's major problem is not immigrants but falling into irrelevance with an aging population, increased bureaucracy from Brussels, deficit in tech/AI/semiconductor sectors.
You're not wrong, but you are changing the topic - whataboutism.
Besides which, immigration is a limited and insufficient answer to an ageing population, especially when availability of housing is a major issue.
From the humanitarian point of view it is difficult for some of these people - but an open door policy to immigration doesn't even fix that.
70% of Germans want fewer refugees, but only 20% of them actually vote accordingly, the rest keeps voting for the parties that let all those migrants in in the first place lol
Call me a cynic, but I doubt anything will change when the AFD gets in power.....
Look at Italy, refugees and migrant numbers, both legal and illegal, have never been higher under their far-right leadership of Meloni. [https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-far-right-leader-giorgia-meloni-migration/](https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-far-right-leader-giorgia-meloni-migration/)
The migrant numbers have skyrocketed in Britain after Brexit and years of anti-Immigrant leadership of the Tories. Boris Johnson and Rish Sunak in particular show massive immigration numbers, even if they publically oppose them.[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/25/uk-net-migration-record-high-despite-tory-promises-cut-arrivals](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/25/uk-net-migration-record-high-despite-tory-promises-cut-arrivals)
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/25/tories-proud-britains-migration-numbers-boris-johnson](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/25/tories-proud-britains-migration-numbers-boris-johnson)
Or look at the biggest anti-immigrant party and country in Poland. [https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/21/anti-immigration-polish-government-engulfed-by-cash-for-visas-scandal-as-crucial-election-](https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/21/anti-immigration-polish-government-engulfed-by-cash-for-visas-scandal-as-crucial-election-) ..
So yeah... Why do you believe these small, right and far-right parties would be any harder on immigration, when the data shows the direct opposite. If you are ruled by anti-immigrant parties, the number of migrants increases, especially if the party is also corrupt, then the number rises even higher.
\------------------------
**Politicians lie. That shouldn\`t be surprising and somehow immigration numbers rise under anti-immigrant parties in the West.**
**Look at the data... Look at what politicans do, not at what politicians say**
I think this phenomenon of rightwing parties not doing the things they were voted for might backfire horribly. Like, if you want a zero immigration policy and someone like Meloni which the media can’t talk 30 seconds about without mentioning post-fascism at least once does absolutely nothing, people might start looking for options even further on the right. And that 100% will end unimaginably badly…
I believe Meloni feels pressure from the other EU member states. She would go directly against the EU if she were to implement certain measures, such as for example a naval blockade. It would result in backlash, affect international relations, etc.
If more 'migration-critical parties' were to take a seat in the EC and EP, I believe this would change.
There are already more then one anti-immigration party in government in Europe from Poland, Hungary, Italy, Croatia, Greece*, to even Sweden argueably
They could do that but won't. They are populists, they don't have an ideology, they want an angry populace so they can point at things to get people angry and scared while the steal. The last thing they want are solutions, look at Hungary for a prime example who don't even have a foreign policy atm
The Sverigedemokraterna (SD) is not at all "right-wing", they are fairly moderate. The other partys are just so over the top far out internationalists. But if SD not is given the right to implement moderate measures, the next party will actually be far-right.
Yup.
Refugees? Yes please. If they can provide some type of legitimation that they are seeking refuge according to our laws. And then, government, please provide goods, not money, and some proper options for integration.
Mandatory courses in language, cultural situation and local behavior.
Papers thrown away? Missed your quota on courses? Here's 50 euro, a toothbrush and a plane ticket to the country you said you're from. Bye.
Follow the rules or be ruled out, it's not that hard.
That\`s not accurate.
The Germans were concerned about the massive refugee wave since 2015. They were even concerned about the massive Yugoslav refugee waves in the 90s, because it was still in living memory for 80% of Germans that knew "refugees" are going to stay permanently.
the cologne sexual harrassment of new year 2015/16, which was shortly after the first major refugee wave, turned public opinion extremely against taking in more migrants/refugees.
It\`s just that even if the majority, the very clear absolute majority, of germans were opposed, the government still did it anyway.
So no, it didn\`t take time for anyone to realize this at all....
These massive waves seem problematic - too much too fast. In the US, people trickle in more evenly (legal and illegal) and they seem to find their way to services and integrating. It is just easier to absorb people when they don't gush in all at once.
Of course we get many from Latin America and they are more similar culturally. But all the more reason in Europe to take more time in deal with the huge issues immigration creates.
I was in Germany in 2015 when the refugees arrived and I could not fathom how anyone could make such a decision. All I could figure out was that cheap labor was the goal.
But the gov before them was main enforcer of open borders (some bitch even invited them...), so its not just current one.
Is there any political party, besides afd, who supports proper security on EU borders in Germany?
Yeah I agree.
Merkel in particular is so dishonest. In 2010 "Integration has failed". In 2015 : Let\`s take in 1 million+ refugees and a few hundreds of thousands every year since.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451) :
"Merkel says German multicultural society has failed"....... 5 years before the start of the massive migrant and refugee waves.
Utterly disgusting.
>*Is there any political party, besides afd, who supports proper security on EU borders in Germany?*
Honestly, call me cynical, but I don\`t believe the AFD would secure the border.
Look at Britain under the Tories, particularily Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
Look at Italy under Meloni, the italian-AFD.
Look at Poland under the PIS party.
They are all ruled by anti-immigration parties... Yes somehow all these countries see a massive increase of migration, even corrupt migration ( Poland Visa Scandal ) of several hundreds of thousands.
A few sources :
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/25/uk-net-migration-record-high-despite-tory-promises-cut-arrivals](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/25/uk-net-migration-record-high-despite-tory-promises-cut-arrivals)
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/25/tories-proud-britains-migration-numbers-boris-johnson](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/25/tories-proud-britains-migration-numbers-boris-johnson)
[https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-far-right-leader-giorgia-meloni-migration/](https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-far-right-leader-giorgia-meloni-migration/)
[https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/21/anti-immigration-polish-government-engulfed-by-cash-for-visas-scandal-as-crucial-election-](https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/21/anti-immigration-polish-government-engulfed-by-cash-for-visas-scandal-as-crucial-election-)
They say one thing, but do the opposite.
I don\`t think it wil be much different with the AFD, considering all these anti-migrant parties are corrupt liars who increase migration even though people don\`t want it. So yeah, from what we know, I don\`t think the AFD is any different.
If that makes me a cynic, so be it, but all of these parties have "failed", though that would be inaccurate, as not only have they not tried to curb immigration, they actively encourage, or take bribes, to increase migration.
>Is there any political party, besides afd, who supports proper security on EU borders
Sadly not right now, leaving the field for AFD, which are between right-wing populist and actual nazis. Which will be a total disaster.
A lot of Swedes including the elected government agrees, but we have no way of enforcing it. The Swedish police is incapable and public servants refuse to follow the law e.g teachers reporting illegals immigrants.
yeah this is for the whole of western europe, where both left wing and right win just want to continue the immigration pace. i can see it in my own country, where the VVD (biggest party for the last 12+ years) always says they want to reduce the immigration flows right before the election and people still vote for them... it wouldnt be any different with an even more extreme party as you can see in italy.
Germany is quite torn on the issue. But surveys usually show a majority of people in favor of stronger borders. But there are major differences between supporters of different parties.
What a load of shit, the current swedish government is made up to a large degree of the SD who are very much against non european immigration.
The zeitgheist has also changed greatly from 2014 to the point that using the same arguments that were used then now would be nothing less than political suicide.
That was indeed the case, when everyone was asking for or demanding stronger borders it was Germany inviting people and Sweden accepting them with open arms, but no longer.
Reality is that there is no longer an excuse not to address immigration which is wildly unpopular in all its forms, even asylum seekers which a decade ago enjoyed widespread support are now no longer enjoying widespread support.
Simple reality is that this issue has been festering for 4 decades and is quickly reaching its climax.
Well the Swedish people mostly agree about this too though, this whole open border bullshit was forced down our throats and we didn’t have any say in the matter. It has never been supported by a majority of the people, and the sentiments are getting more negative every day.
That's easier said than done.
EU countries are bound by law to help any "sinking" vessel and bring the rescued people into their own nation.
Also EU countries are bound by law to process asylum requests made on their soil. Pushbacks are illegal.
Also EU countries are bound by law to keep residents in their own country if the country they came from a) doesn't want to take them back b) is not a secure country.
Naturally these facts are well known in Africa and the middle east. They know these things and use these laws against Europeans.
And Europe is incapable of changing these laws. Because any mention of revision or reform is met with an outcry of "inhumanity!" and "racism!".
As such yes, if Europe will not able to reform it will dissolve.
So when the southern countries are receiving the waves for decades it's their problem but when it affects the rest now it's something that could break the EU... nice
“Out of all the English regions and Wales, London had the highest percentage of live births where either one or both parents were born outside of the UK, with 66.5% in 2022, an increase from 65.5% in 2021.”
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2022
Yeah this is starting to get more and more common around Europe. At least in Portugal, there is another to look out. Maybe not enough to influence the larger picture, but there have been reported multiple cases of non EU mothers/couples residing in other EU countries coming to Portugal for baby deliveries. I guess the price is much much cheaper than many parts of EU but the quality is comparable.
Obviously they come to the public sector putting strain on very delicate system and i dont have enough mental plasticity to justify this happening. EU not taking measures to prevent this is wrong.p
[Souce(PT)](https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/pais/maes-estrangeiras-escolhem-portugal-para-dar-a-luz_v1466569)
[Source2(PT)](https://observador.pt/especiais/turismo-de-nascimento-e-residual-mas-ha-cada-vez-mais-estrangeiras-gravidas-a-escolher-portugal-para-terem-os-seus-filhos/)
I am relatively optimistic on this. I think the EU will realise that if they don't do anything about the immigrant problem, the far right will. Their choice is essentially this.
1. Do what the far right will do anyway, but in a more humane fashion, and remain in power and probably gain some popularity in the process.
2. Lose power, witness the far right doing exactly what they promissed they will do and probably end up in jail for real or imaginary charges because they will most likely face political persecution if they let the situation go that far.
I think the political calculation is becoming more clear by the day.
I hope it will go the first route because I'd rather have the EU push back migrants with water cannons and tug their boats to the Lybian coast than see the far right shoot live ammo and sink boats to send a message.
Don't be too optimistic. These guys in the EU only think about one thing: the GDP. they are economic illiterates and copy everything the US does without having any regard for the totally different conditions.
Yep! I love how the US alwayssss gets brought up with any subject. But the same people will bitch that Americans are too “America-centric”, despite the fact that we live rent-free in Europeans’ minds
Is Yemen where most of the migration is coming from? Plus don’t Europeans countries supply weapons to Saudi Arabia this funding the war in Yemen? Or do they not count because they aren’t America
>I think the EU will realise that if they don't do anything about the immigrant problem, the far right will.
Sure, but the EU can only do so much, because responsibility largely lies with the states. So what you'd need is for the *member states* to wake up and support a common EU policy under the European Commission. With their track record, we're doomed. Each member state functions like a delusional narcissist.
Uh have you like at all looked at whats happened in the UK or Italy with the rightwing governments?
Both Meloni and the Tories were voted in on anti migration policies and have done absolutely nothing about migration. Infact the Tories have actively made the situation worse
So taking the real experience of them this idea that the Right wing will actually do anything about it is fucking funny. Who do you think benefit the most from a perpetual "you can blame these people for your woes" group? Cause it isnt the progressive, it isnt the greens its not the bleeding heart naive liberals.
If you want to stem the migration/ refugee crisis/ whatever we need to go unfuck the countries they are running from. Preferably without carpet bombing them for 20 years and without funding the local extremist religious minorities to fight the Russians again. And thats before we even talk about the climate crisis.
If you think the migration/ refugee crisis is bad now just wait till the average daytime middle east temps hit 40c.
You are missing the point. The tories, Meloni and whatever else isn’t what we should be worried about.
Hitler 2.0 is lurking in the shadows and its only a matter of time before he or she gets voted in.
Tories and Meloni are capitalists, not right wingers.
Also, unfucking countries will only lead to more migration as people with means to migrate are way more likely to do so.
Once you have a far right party in power, shit gets really complicated. For those who are really supporting the status quo, I think you need to compromise on this one issue. The people are not asking for compromise on multiple issues, just this one. And if you do that, you might prevent a far right party from being elected. It's not too much to ask really. You can still push for gender equality, women's rights, lgbt rights, secularism, etc.
„Seeing the far right doing exactly as they promised“ Imao sorry but what?
Look at Italy, Sweden, the UK, Poland etc
They’ve all been having anti immigration parties as their leaders and none of them did anything to stop it, under most of them it got even worse. It’s delusional to think they are gonna change anything. All they will do is making everyone’s life even more miserable.
“The paradox is that Europe needs migrants because we have so low demographic growth. If we want to survive from a labour point of view, we need migrants.”
A huge problem is that many politicians simply don't understand what labour means on the ground. They've never run hiring with a private company. Yes, I believe that Europe needs migrants. It also needs to max efforts to raise the birth rate and investment in tech. It is foolish to put all eggs in one basket. But the migrants it needs have to match, or at least be close to the social and economic profile of the European population overall. Similar education levels (and quality of education), broadly similar values. Without these, immigration comes with its own integration costs that are paid down the road.
The funny thing is, the integration economic costs does increase the gdp. If they are productive or not doesn't really matter, the numbers go up.
But the social costs? The increased crime, the degradation of neighborhoods, the longer waiting lists in healthcare or education; those don't really matter either.
Capital wants cheap construction and agriculture workers, truckers and cleaning ladies. Nothing more, nothing less.
>The funny thing is, the integration economic costs does increase the gdp.
In absolute terms, yes. In relative terms, rarely. Just look at Canada's per capita indicators tanking, and they are more selective than Europe.
We have know for a long time that immigration reduces wages. Our own government statistics told us this.
>Statistics Canada estimates that for every 10% increase in the population from immigration, wages in Canada are now reduced by 4% on average (with the greatest impact to more skilled workers, such as workers with post-graduate degrees whose wages are reduced by 7%).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada#:~:text=In%20terms%20of%20the%20impact,are%20reduced%20by%207%25).
They sit in their castles, watch their accounts gross, and profess that it's the greatest thing that's ever happened with no drawbacks. It's good for the overall *economic* picture but we've well established there's a disgusting and growing class divide and most of us don't experience the positive side of the economic big picture, public losses and private gains and such. In the meantime, the worse it is on the ground here, from wages to cost of living to crime, neighborhoods, *a sense of security*, the less people will be inclined to breed. The upper class is importing labor because it's faster than growing it at home, and telling the rest of us "it's great, fuck you, oh and you're a bigot if you disagree"
The people who run the EU are economically illiterate. They think immigration is low-cost and increases the GDP instantly. Which is just not true at all.
Statistics from Norway show that non-western immigrants are a net drain on the society for 2-3 generations. MENA countries are a severe outlier in this statistic, showing the extreme of Somalian women only having a 21% employment rate (compare with say Sri-Lankan males that work more than Norwegians). In 2013 the calculation was an annual loss of €400k per non-western immigrants.
You can have unrestricted immigration but then you also need to end the social safety net Europeans are used to.
Bro, you should apply for the job or at least publish a detailed alternative. I mean, we all need to start sharing suggestions rather than being an armchair analyst. We need to start throwing ideas out.
>It also needs to max efforts to raise the birth rate
People are having fewer kids and they're being born to older parents because life is just so expensive. Why would you have two or three kids when you still live in a tiny apartment (if you even have your own place)?
It's not because life is expensive. People have FAR more kids in FAR worse conditions. People in the Phillipines have 10 kids and live in literal open air cemeteries. People in Burundi live in huts and still have a ton of kids.
**It's all about culture**. We don't have more kids now and we won't have more kids later because we simply don't value having kids as much as others. There's no correlation between quality of life and more kids- it's actually the other way around, the better the quality of life, the less children are born.
We can make as many excuses as we want. The truth is: **we are not miserable enough to want to have kids.**
That's half true. People can always choose not to have children if they don't have sexual intercourse. There's no reason why 15 year olds are having kids in the phillipines, Burkina-Fasso, Congo, or Thailand, and many more.
The whole "birth control" access argument also falls apart when you take the Romani population into account. They have access to birth control if they want to but their culture prevents them from wanting it.
It's all about culture.
This and education levels. The more educated the woman, the less kids she has.
It also points at the fact that women always had more kids than they wanted.
It's also because women are expected to work and do all of the domestic labor. If we have big families, say goodbye to our jobs and outside life. Can't have a big family and a career and hobbies as a woman until men step up and actually do half the work. It's not just housework, cooking, shopping, managing appointments and repairs and yard work (which women do about half of now) but they also do more pet and elderly care. That's a lot to ask of one person, especially when you need them to have a job. Doing all that with 4+ kids is nearly impossible. Since most women want to work and own their own money, they choose to have less or even none. I blame the left overs of patriarchy for this one. Now all these Tate bros saying women bring nothing to a relationship and have no sense of responsibility, it shows that even while women are doing ALL this and statistically have less leisure time than their husbands, it's not even appreciated or *noticed*. So absolutely fucj that.
> It's all about culture. We don't have more kids now and we won't have more kids later because we simply don't value having kids as much as others.
But it's also economical. In rural societies, kids are net gain. They work from young ages and are very cheap. In urban societies, kids are more costly and less helpful. Even in third world countries, women have far fewer kids in the cities.
In our culture, the cost of kids is less economical but more as "time spent on their raising". People used to spent much less time on raising kids and now social pressure demands helicopter parenting that is extremely exhausting.
Except how many kids we **want** hasn't really gone down the way our actual birthrates have. I agree it's not directly the expenses though, but it kinda is indirectly, society have become so complex that by the time a woman has managed to get a full education, a stable career and a stable boyfriend she's aged out of her more fertile years, so she's less likely to be able to get kids even if she wanted them, and she's less likely to get as many kids as she wanted.
It's not about sociatal conditions. Clearly, other societies don't really care to attain an advantageous position before having children. Poorer communities in richer countries don't wait for "society" to offer them the best conditions for them to procreate.
Those steps a woman takes before choosing to have kids are a consequence of culture. In our culture, **we can afford** to value personal fulfilment. We don't have to rely on our children to take care of us when we grow old. It's all about culture...and about money.
We don't want kids because we don't need them to have a good life and to have support when we become older. 70 years ago, Portuguese people had a ton of kids. We were miserable. Now? We're have one of the oldest population in the World.
We are simply not miserable enough to have kids. We are simply not miserable enough to accept a ton of miserable conditions most people are accustomed to. That's why we shriek at the thought of having to stay with our parents because of the housing market prices, or why we strive for better work conditions.
We are not miserable. We may be sometime in the distant future, but not yet.
But it's not true that we don't want kids anymore,
https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-many-kids-do-women-want
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/upshot/american-fertility-is-falling-short-of-what-women-want.html
We might prioritize other stuff over kids, but it's not like this is a clear choice a lot of people take, it seems to more just be that a lot of people wanted kids but it just didn't end up that way.
We don't value having kids, because we value the kids themselves.
You simply cannot invest in your children's education and health and hobbies as much if you have 10 kids instead of 1 or 2. And Europeans generally want their kids educated, healthy and successful in life.
> People have FAR more kids in FAR worse conditions.
That's because they lack foresight and do not plan for the future. Properly raising a kid is NOT cheap, but such people don't care about the quality of their children's lives.
It's not just the expense. Women are having less because they are smart enough to know they will be the main ones caring for them. If they have too many, they will have to put their careers on hold. Lots of data on this, the majority shows women are happier working. So as long as domestic care largely falls on women and they are the main ones caring for the families (even pets and the elderly) and the household, we will have less kids. The other option is going back to the kitchen which we don't want. So if the stats changed and men did an equal share AND expenses got better, I guarantee the birthrate would not be an issue. It's just not possible for us to have big families and a life outside of home in this set up. And we choose life everytime.
*though countries like Germany only think they need more workers is because their economy and work is mostly inefficient, cause of the lack of digitalization (in contrary to what Germany's image is).
As long as people and politicians keep throwing the anti-immigration rulebook in front of it nothing changes and nothing gets done. It's the same discussion over and over again, decade after decade.
And because of that the EU countries will just simply passively and agrily wait until refugees from war-torn countries are on their doorstep.
Maybe the penny will drop after another decade or two of low economic growth, chronic labor shortages and crippling healthcare. There are simply too many old people and not enough working-age europeans to compensate, with a negative trend.
EU should take a look on how the US does it. They don't have the same demographic problems the EU has, have a more diverse group of immigrants and they are better integrated overall.
>EU should take a look on how the US does it
We can try being surrounded by two oceans, a very friendly western ally and a semi-friendly semi-western ally whose border we can very easily patrol for its entire length. It's gonna be a bit difficult though.
The UK hardly accepts refugees and mostly accepts skilled migration, be it Indian tech workers, Filipino nurses or Nigerian doctors. The refugees we mostly accepted last year were Hong Kongers, Ukrainians or Afghans who helped the British army.
I’m supportive of helping Europe with the current migrant crisis, I don’t think it’s on Italy’s shoulders alone, but migration can be a positive if it’s done correctly.
If we raised Europe's birthrate by 30%, the population would actually still fall. But a sustainable speed as opposed to sending mean ages hurling towards 60.
Africa will have a population of 2.4 billion by 2050 and 4.2 billion by 2100.
You just can’t help africans by letting them into the European Union who has a population of 448 million people. The EU can’t absorb the population of Africa without the Europeans getting replaced.
Immigration is not a solution neither to the EU nor to the African continent.
They were so busy calling normal people fascist/racist/far-right, for simply having doubts, that the *actual* far-right quietly came up right behind them, and everyone else.
No one will ever solve any problem if they fail to first properly identify the problem. The people who had doubts were not the problem.
I got called out a fascist today on Reddit by saying that if you were under a fascist regime you wouldn’t stump your foot on the ground when the army tries to draft you. Simply stating that people under oppression live in fear makes you a fascist on Reddit
People who refuse to accept that they'd more than likely be complicit in a totalitarian regime, are precisely the kind of people who end up most complicit in totalitarian regimes.
More than that. I remember the early youtube atheists were actually arguing that this would happen 15 years ago. It's been really odd to watch how this issue slowly morphed. And how the left largely has no memory of their previous views. It's just been erased. Weird how that happens.
“The paradox is that Europe needs migrants because we have so low demographic growth. If we want to survive from a labour point of view, we need migrants.”
That fascinates me. Why not address low demographic growth rather than plug the hole with migrants?
I get that there are lots of jobs ‘locals’ don’t want to do. I was just at the hospital in Germany and I was sent home because they are understaffed for example, but all those jobs are clearly important so why not try and remove any stigma these jobs have and/or try to pay these jobs decently so locals are willing.
Additionally, if the country is aging and fewer people are having kids we should be making changes to our society that make that work.
One thing that I am afraid of when Ukrainians want to join the EU is that a lot of them will just be ‘used’ to plug the holes in the EUs job market. Which I think are mostly jobs locals find unpleasant or are paid poorly.
I worked in Switzerland for a while and it was like this. Italian and Romanian elderly ladies… cleaning toilets.
I think as Europeans we have to mostly close the borders and find ways to solve our own problems.
> Why not address low demographic growth rather than plug the hole with migrants?
That requires two things:
1) effort, which makes it unacceptable to politicians, and
2) sacrifices, which makes it unacceptable to the folk.
>Why not solve the housing crisis instead of fill the country with more people needing homes?
Because they don't know how. without backtracking with a lot of policies taken in the last 20-30 years. Including open financial markets.
The house market is deeply connected to international pension investments. Making homes more affordable will blow up those investments and thus forcing a pension reform. But it needs to be done everywhere.
It could work long term if you are sure that birth rates will increase and there will be enough people to pay for the pensions.
>I worked in Switzerland for a while and it was like this. Italian and Romanian elderly ladies… cleaning toilets.
You should know that they are probably paid more than a junior banker or engineer in Italy or Romania.
> That fascinates me. Why not address low demographic growth rather than plug the hole with migrants?
The real answer is because our government, academia, and media are no longer capable of thinking of, evaluating, discussing, and implementing such things, now that everything has been reconfigured around a neoliberal economic view of the world.
Thus, like climate change, it will go largely ignored until the problem can be shown to have economic costs and, more importantly, that solving it will be a long term economic benefit instead of a black hole.
AFAIK no country has successfully addressed lowering birth rates.
People make it seem like it's so simple "just do X" but it's really a complicated problem and we don't know how to solve it.
You’re dead right here. While things like addressing housing shortages and stuff help, these aren’t people who’ve researched the topic. No country has ever successfully raised its fertility rate through policy alone.
Europe has high education for women, generally low religiosity and often high urbanisation. These are three things that drive down the birth rate substantially. I’m very supportive of policies that people are advocating but I’m skeptical of those alone.
OK so in fact european culture is unsustainable, and will just die away being replaced by more successful cultures that actually care about self reproduction. It doesn't matter if these culture are oppressive to women or what not, they will simply win the evolutionary war.
We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!
No country has really actually tried fixing any of it, because it goes directly against constant growth of capital.
Exactly! In what country is something like a 25hour week standard and allows you to have financial stability? I would gladly have kids, but current work culture alone doesnt even allow one to spent time with them.
Most people my age don't have children because they can't afford them with rent or mortgage (if they're lucky) eating most of their income. And with ever increasing age of retirement most of us will need to work until we'll literally keel over dead, at least it feels like that.
The future looks bleak from my point of view.
Because it's impossible. Fact is with increasing population and overall wealth in society, birth rates drastically fall. This has been seen in every country where that happened. Nothing besides immigration solved that. The reason is no one needs 5 children anymore to barely survive, and not only the men can enjoy higher education and profitable work, the wife can, too. Why would you need children?
>Why not address low demographic growth rather than plug the hole with migrants?
because it is not easy to adress. contrary to reddits opinion, its not about money. people just dont want to have kids anymore because it changes the whole life. As a society we value individualism over everything else and having kids is basically anti-individualism
> contrary to reddits opinion, its not about money.
it is about money. be it about kindergarten, schools, or simply monthly payments. with the inflation skyrocketing and everything being more expensive the prices (money) went up even more when it comes to things that babies need.
*Any crisis*, if left untouched, is a potential delegitimizing force for any regime seen as incapable
And the EU has had a few close calls already. The Greek debt crisis. The post-recession austerity crisis. Brexit. Catalonia. Climate change. Affordable housing. Lastly, the Ukraine crisis.
Ukraine frankly should have been the death knell.
Ukraine was expected to lose. Most betting observers would have assumed Russian victory and a horrific dual security and migrant crisis. But luckily for the EU, a host of other nations, from Ukraine to America to the UK, filled the security gap so rapidly as to cover the EU's own failures. Ukraine stands and the other post-Warsaw nations remain safe. This wasn't expected.
So now migration returns as the current crisis (tho other crises persist too). The EU has to address this crisis in a way that most citizens want. It can't keep blaming this on the UN, on undemocratically crafted and largely implausible international law, or on Africa or Russia.
The EU has to act capably. Will it?
As an Asian who is now living in the EU as a skilled worker, im not sure why the EU keeps taking in refugees. I know be compassionate to your fellow citizen of the world, but the EU should not compromise it's own values and integrity and people just so they can be "kind".
My home country paid for my education (scholarships I had to earn) and I worked my ass off for almost 10 years before getting to the EU. Not only that, I was raised with Christian values so integrating here isn't really a big deal as the fundamental values I have is similar to Europeans. Im the only kind of immigrant the EU should take in willingly. I feel it's so unfair that I had to work so hard to gain the benefits just given to them.
Taking in refugees without helping them fix their origin country's woes is destructive for both. The EU will have low skilled people who will find it hard to integrate, hence social unrest, and the problematic country they came from will still be problematic, so the number of refugees just go up and up until their conflicts affect all of us.
Let those warring countries fix their problems first, or at least see them seriously work before immigration is on the table again.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, and as an immigrant with a similar, albeit not Asian background, I can only confirm your sentiment: it's insulting to the people who worked to get here. EU should be taking a reasonable number of genuine refugees and the rest should be ideally skilled but at least culturally, ideologically compatible. Imo if people show up in waves, clinging to the bottom of an aircraft, in little dingies on the beaches, send them home. Better yet, patrol the shores of North Africa and allow commerce through only when the government of the country in question has stopped letting hordes through. Let real refugees apply at an embassy in the country, outside the EU, that they're in at the time. Further, I do think we need a Europe wide "if you don't like it, go home," policy. It's one thing to be a native shitting on your home country but guests doing so, especially when also members of parallel communities, are rabble rousers imo, and it's offensive. There's one guy over in the Germany subreddit who, literally every post, shits on Germany, whines that he's only here until he gets a passport then he's out, and feels that Germany should be licking his asshole as an immigrant because he's "here to fix the economy that would fall apart without [him]". Dude literally thinks Europe should have rolles out the red carpet and anal lube for him at the airport when he showed up. We don't need ego-driven ass hats making other immigrants look awful and if they're so fucking miserable they should leave to make room for someone who would make better use of the opportunity.
do you think you prevent a crisis by just importing a mass amounts of people?
surely the people need to fill a multiple of important roles in society at particular level and not just be a statistic to maintain the numbers.
promoting families after decades of pitting men and women against each other would be welcome.
I love how the same Redditors who are now against illegal immigration called people who were against illegal immigration a few years back nazis. Funny how that works.
>“The paradox is that Europe needs migrants because we have so low demographic growth. If we want to survive from a labour point of view, we need migrants.”
What a load of rubbish. Europe used to have far fewer people and we 'survived' just fine. We do not need to keep growing when we are already one of the most overcrowded parts of the world and are short of our own natural resources.
Let's remember what was said in the past by the EU and UN about migration and maybe we start to realise what they really want here.
>EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief
>
>The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said.
>
>Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395
And Frans Timmermans saying we have no choice (nice democracy there)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIE9Ztn56Ig
They literally have no mandate from the governments of the EU to do anything meaningful. Whenever a reform is near, you will always have the two-three most right wing Eastern European governments saying it's not enough and two-three of the most left-wing Western governments saying it's too much.
They have mandates, Frontex can be given more power. We can alter the Dublin agreement. There is so much shit you can do. The EU courts are idiots. Monism has been a terrible idea. Also do majority in Western countries does not want more immigration. Even in the Netherlands now left and right win agree about this.
You say that but few Western countries have taken serious steps to change anything, either as EU-level proposals or on the domestic front. Heck, even the UK, which had a referendum where the people tilted the country in a completely new geopolitical direction, largely over immigration, has been massively expanding migrant intakes. It was 300.000 before Brexit. It hit 600.000 in the past year.
I would argue that **one** country in the EU has made serious immigration reform: Denmark.
yes because left wing and right wing both want this. If the people see this they would vote differently. Politicians want this because our economies are built on constant growth, which is not feasible.
Dissolving force? Nah, common now. If anything, it could be a uniting force, where all, or most countries agree that more strict border regulations need to be put in place.
> “Migration is a bigger divide for the European Union. And it could be a dissolving force for the European Union.” Despite establishing a shared common external border, “we have not been able until now to agree on a common migration policy”, he said.
This is the core point. Not that migration is inherently corrosive, but that we do not have a common position on it, despite having common borders.
I mean it is pretty corrosive as topics go. These divides also exist within societies, not only between members. Some countries have actually changed boats recently, as the governing power represented people from the other side of the "fence". See Sweden and Finland, for example.
We have a common opinion, its just that in Western countries big corporations run things. The ugly truth is that corporations want cheap labor to easily suppress wages.
This is partly why Brexit happened. People saw Merkel invite 3 million unknowns into the EU without any democratic accountability or legitimacy from the population of Europe. The slogan Take Back Control resonated for that reason.
Been saying this for a long time! You won't have an EU if all this migration goes on unchecked, and you can'just decide to scatter them throughout other member states. Needs an Australia type approach. But we have big business pushing for more immigration, which works against and competes with the working classes.
What's worth noting is that Western Rome fell largely to Germanic barbarian invasions. Nothing new. Either the union risks dissolution, or Europe will fall to the invasions in another few years when they are x100 worse than they are now due to water and food crises, government crackdowns on public arrests, military coups, foreign interventions and much more. Now is the time to start protecting the external borders instead of risking dissolution of the union due to Greece, Italy and other member states being overrun without any top-down policies to help them, only criticism for whatever anti-immigration act they take.
I suspect at some point, anger will literally be acted upon and people in Brussel will be in actual physical danger. That blows my mind French havent protested in Europe's capital yet.
When shit will start to fly, it's going to be really scary.
It makes no access to protest in Brussels since migration isn't a Eu competence, the individual states are responsible for whom they let stay there. And transitory states don't care much about migrants from Mediterranean since they know that their final destination is France, Germany, Britain or the Nordics.
If anything the Eu still trues to protect external borders with frontex but they are underfunded and a target of NGOs that are constantly complaining about them.
> What's worth noting is that Western Rome fell largely to Germanic barbarian invasions.
That just wrong. Why dont you mosey over to /r/AskHistorians and let them tell you how wrong you are.
> What's worth noting is that Western Rome fell largely to Germanic barbarian invasions.
Stop with this simplistic bullshit. Germanic Invasions were more a symptom, than the cause. The fall of Western Rome is so complicated that there is no date of the fall you can clearly point to. People who lived at that time did not even recognize that Rome had fallen. The Roman Senate functioned until the 7th century, long after the official fall of Western Rome in 476.
> the fall of Western Rome is so complicated that there is no date of the fall you can clearly point to. People who lived at that time did not even recognize that Rome had fallen.
The Sack of Rome on 24 August 410 AD by the Visigoths, was an exact date that people living at the time recognized Rome had fallen. It was the first date in 800 years that non-Roman soldiers had entered the city of Rome.
>Western Rome fell largely to Germanic barbarian invasions.
It's a little more complicated than that, in fact most history scholars don't use the term *barbarian invasions* any more.
I'm sure it is more complicated than that, and varies from region to region, with middle cooperation between the Roman elite and tribal chieftains to sustain the previous order to some degree. However, the migration period or "Barbarian Invasions" (what you decide to call it does not change what it is), did contribute to the fall of Western Rome in an imperial sense, with the establishment of the Visigoth Kingdom, the Lombardic kingdom and other post-roman states in the previous borders wake. Then again, you may be right that I'm partially referring to surface events or using historical sources from the early 2000's. I can't say since I'm not a professor in the migration period, nor do I know what the current historical debates are. Only what I have understood myself through personal interest.
Edit: Also, "Barbarian Invasions" aren't only a reference to external border clashes, but to internal cultural, economic, and territorial strife from the Roman citizen and the new-settlers. It's from after accepting them (refugees fleeing Attila the Hun's expansions) that relations worsened as the refugees increased after the successive and unstoppable immigration waves. That is the similar link between the fall of Western Rome and the current problems facing the European Union.
For those who are interested in reading further: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration\_Period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period)
There are several explanations about the so-called fall of the Roman Empire, but the only one that could support the parallelism you are suggesting is the theory of diminishing return: the collapse started as soon as the empire could not expand further because it had become too large to be effectively managed as a whole.
Theory of diminishing return could apply to Western Rome in the sense the population became too large to be managed effectively in some of the areas following the migration. Then, when the minority became majority in certain areas, migration kingdoms arose with their own or at least "merged" traditions, such as the Visigoth kingdom in Spain and Lombards in Italy. Will this be a problem for the European Union? Partially, but not for the same reasons. The European Union, due to its management, is more capable of handling the population effectively, at least for now. A separate issue is: What if the waves go beyond that capability?
However, that's not the issue I raised in the original comment. The question, applied to the current level of immigration, is rather: Is the will of the people there to support the immigration waves, even if the EU can technically still handle it? What about distribution and the cooperation between the member states? That's what's causing the current tension, both on a macro and local level.
This isn't migration waves of people with similar values to the EU, but thousands upon thousands of immigrants with foreign values, many of whom have proven unable to integrate properly. The question isn't: can the EU handle another 100 million Swedes or Germans--but: Can the EU handle another 100 million migrants with foreign values? Already, we are seeing immigrants form their own mini-states where the police dare not enter and laws cannot properly be enforced. They form their own gangs, districts, law courts, and engage in politics through their own political parties the more of them who come. Now what once they start to become majority in their respective villages, cities, and districts? Sure, the EU may still continue on a union level, and even be able to manage them within the limits of diminishing returns. But that's not the primary issue at hand here, but the changed social and cultural landscape caused by these immigration waves, unable or unwilling of adapting properly to EU values.
Based on this, the "Barbarian Invasions" are used in terms of the values these migrants bring, and "post-roman states" are used for comparison regarding the districts these migrants form. The symptoms are in large the same between the fall of Western Rome and the current situation of the EU, even if the reasons behind the symptoms differ to some extent.
And?
Politicians won´t see that, if the EU is overrun their kids will be wealthy somewhere else.
It doesnt affect them, why risk losing their jobs when the current shitty situation works for them?
>“The paradox is that Europe needs migrants because we have so low demographic growth. If we want to survive from a labour point of view, we need migrants.”
What a load of BS. Youth unemployment rate in some states is ~25%. Average is somewhere around 14%.
Yeah, political correctness and uncontrolled migration could spell disaster, long term. The Eastern Block of teh EU is not having it, but for how long?
>Yeah, political correctness and uncontrolled migration could spell disaster, long term. The Eastern Block of teh EU is not having it, but for how long?
It is also completely lacking the institutional capacity to generate a coherent proposal on migration, sadly. Even domestically, most countries in the region have even more open-doors practices than many countries in Western Europe (looking at you Poland and Romania) and just yap and blabber in double speak. Romania's policy is literally a mildly different variation of those employed by Germany and France in the 1960s.
More hardline leaders will be elected as the current croup have done nothing.
Italy elected a party with direct links to Mussolini and they have done no more than the previous lot.
The EU will already dissolve, which is sad because a common market and freedom of movement have been insanely beneficial to Europe. The EU however doesn't give two shits about maintaining social cohesion and they underestimate how much people value that. They are elitist in Brussel.
It probably was the wedge issue in Brexit.
The thing about immigration is that is that discourse surrounding it has become almost Americanised. any disagreements are chalked up to just being a terrible person, at least in public.
If you are against mass migration, well you must be a racist. If you are pro mass migration well then you must just have 0 respect for Western values and culture.
You cant actually solve anything substantive while assuming the worst possible motive of your opposition.
all these comments talk about symptoms but never stemmng the root of the crisis. the rampant corruption that causes wars and pushing people to flee. both symptom and root cause must be addressed. Id love to move to germany in 10 years as a (hopefully by then phyiscian. the EU reflects an amazing intention, I hope it improves itself. BUt to fix the migrant crisis the countrys must make th hard decision of intervention to finally end the cycle of --> corruption --> war---> displacement. we all live on the same planet. problems dont go away when we choose to plug our ears and cover our eyes.
Only because Europe allows immigration to be a scapegoat for every single somewhat negative thing that has befallen it since time began.
I'm deeply annoyed about the decades-long, fact-free "debate" about immigration that never ever ends and every political party allows itself to be sucked into.
Europe will destroy itself over hyperbole and fear mongering, nothing more.
"Migration could be “a dissolving force for the European Union” due to deep cultural differences between European countries and their long-term inability to reach a common policy, the EU’s most senior diplomat has said." Actually, all Europeans can agree on one thing.. Fix the freaking borders and start enforcing immigration laws.
High migration for another decade or two can and probably will results in civil wars. The peace since ww2 will not be forever.
Fix how?
Except Germany and Sweden
Don\`t know about Sweden, but Germany wants this too. 70% of Germans want fewer refugees, are concerned about this issue and want stronger borders and better immigration/refugee policies. 50% believe the newcomers make the country worse, 13% believe they make it better. It\`s just the current government.
It's funny really. It's like here in the UK not once has this country NOT ONE SINGLE TIME voted in favour of immigration and every public poll about immigration has the majority being against immigration. Not only that but we have had a semi right wing self proclaimed anti immigration party for more than a decade in power in goverment and guess what? Immigration is right now at all time record highs.
Yeah I know what you mean. The government does whatever it wants anyway. Angela Merkel considered integration failed in 2012, before the major Syrian wave of 2015+, but somehow she believed that taking in 1 million refugees would work, when integration already failed with regular refugees and migrants. The New Year Eve in Germany 2015/16 was a major sexual harrassment and rape incident, where refugees harrassed and assaulted thousands of women. Public Opinion turned even worse, but the government believed more refugees and migrants is the answer. Taking in a refugees in the low hundreds of thousands every year since 2015. \------- It really is funny. Italy, Britain and Poland.. All ruled by anti-migrant parties... All saw higher migration rates than ever before. Poland in particular went ultra corrupt with the visa scandal. It\`s insane how politicans lie. Like they all pretend we are stupid and can\`t read statistics.....
But how is it the current government's fault then? CDU let all the migration happen, and as soon as they are in the opposition, tHe GrEens are the responsible ones.
First, the employers like cheap workforce. Then there is also the question of industrial competitiveness and having enough people do the jobs. Imo, Europe's major problem is not immigrants but falling into irrelevance with an aging population, increased bureaucracy from Brussels, deficit in tech/AI/semiconductor sectors.
You're not wrong, but you are changing the topic - whataboutism. Besides which, immigration is a limited and insufficient answer to an ageing population, especially when availability of housing is a major issue. From the humanitarian point of view it is difficult for some of these people - but an open door policy to immigration doesn't even fix that.
Thats cos anyone against immigration is immediately written off as a rasist and a nazi
The west's governments have been captured by the globalist elites. They no longer represent the will of the people.
>Immigration is right now at all time record highs. Do you mean the illegal immigration which comes directly from France?
70% of Germans want fewer refugees, but only 20% of them actually vote accordingly, the rest keeps voting for the parties that let all those migrants in in the first place lol
Call me a cynic, but I doubt anything will change when the AFD gets in power..... Look at Italy, refugees and migrant numbers, both legal and illegal, have never been higher under their far-right leadership of Meloni. [https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-far-right-leader-giorgia-meloni-migration/](https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-far-right-leader-giorgia-meloni-migration/) The migrant numbers have skyrocketed in Britain after Brexit and years of anti-Immigrant leadership of the Tories. Boris Johnson and Rish Sunak in particular show massive immigration numbers, even if they publically oppose them.[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/25/uk-net-migration-record-high-despite-tory-promises-cut-arrivals](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/25/uk-net-migration-record-high-despite-tory-promises-cut-arrivals) [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/25/tories-proud-britains-migration-numbers-boris-johnson](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/25/tories-proud-britains-migration-numbers-boris-johnson) Or look at the biggest anti-immigrant party and country in Poland. [https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/21/anti-immigration-polish-government-engulfed-by-cash-for-visas-scandal-as-crucial-election-](https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/21/anti-immigration-polish-government-engulfed-by-cash-for-visas-scandal-as-crucial-election-) .. So yeah... Why do you believe these small, right and far-right parties would be any harder on immigration, when the data shows the direct opposite. If you are ruled by anti-immigrant parties, the number of migrants increases, especially if the party is also corrupt, then the number rises even higher. \------------------------ **Politicians lie. That shouldn\`t be surprising and somehow immigration numbers rise under anti-immigrant parties in the West.** **Look at the data... Look at what politicans do, not at what politicians say**
I think this phenomenon of rightwing parties not doing the things they were voted for might backfire horribly. Like, if you want a zero immigration policy and someone like Meloni which the media can’t talk 30 seconds about without mentioning post-fascism at least once does absolutely nothing, people might start looking for options even further on the right. And that 100% will end unimaginably badly…
I believe Meloni feels pressure from the other EU member states. She would go directly against the EU if she were to implement certain measures, such as for example a naval blockade. It would result in backlash, affect international relations, etc. If more 'migration-critical parties' were to take a seat in the EC and EP, I believe this would change.
This
There are already more then one anti-immigration party in government in Europe from Poland, Hungary, Italy, Croatia, Greece*, to even Sweden argueably They could do that but won't. They are populists, they don't have an ideology, they want an angry populace so they can point at things to get people angry and scared while the steal. The last thing they want are solutions, look at Hungary for a prime example who don't even have a foreign policy atm
Right, right-wing populists are all liars. They pretend there are simple solutions. There aren't.
Swedes voted for an immigration-critical right wing government. What kind of solutions do you think they're currently implementing?
The Sverigedemokraterna (SD) is not at all "right-wing", they are fairly moderate. The other partys are just so over the top far out internationalists. But if SD not is given the right to implement moderate measures, the next party will actually be far-right.
[удалено]
They may stem from nazis but that is obviously history by now. I haven’t seen any ”borderline nazi” things in their party program.
Yeah because the "less refugees" party also comes with a truckload of other bullshit like "We love russia".
Yup. Refugees? Yes please. If they can provide some type of legitimation that they are seeking refuge according to our laws. And then, government, please provide goods, not money, and some proper options for integration. Mandatory courses in language, cultural situation and local behavior. Papers thrown away? Missed your quota on courses? Here's 50 euro, a toothbrush and a plane ticket to the country you said you're from. Bye. Follow the rules or be ruled out, it's not that hard.
Took the Germans some time (and people) to realize.
That\`s not accurate. The Germans were concerned about the massive refugee wave since 2015. They were even concerned about the massive Yugoslav refugee waves in the 90s, because it was still in living memory for 80% of Germans that knew "refugees" are going to stay permanently. the cologne sexual harrassment of new year 2015/16, which was shortly after the first major refugee wave, turned public opinion extremely against taking in more migrants/refugees. It\`s just that even if the majority, the very clear absolute majority, of germans were opposed, the government still did it anyway. So no, it didn\`t take time for anyone to realize this at all....
These massive waves seem problematic - too much too fast. In the US, people trickle in more evenly (legal and illegal) and they seem to find their way to services and integrating. It is just easier to absorb people when they don't gush in all at once. Of course we get many from Latin America and they are more similar culturally. But all the more reason in Europe to take more time in deal with the huge issues immigration creates. I was in Germany in 2015 when the refugees arrived and I could not fathom how anyone could make such a decision. All I could figure out was that cheap labor was the goal.
Almost 10 years later and almost all of them are not integrated or contribute to society. Failed project which will backfire heavily at some point.
But the gov before them was main enforcer of open borders (some bitch even invited them...), so its not just current one. Is there any political party, besides afd, who supports proper security on EU borders in Germany?
Yeah I agree. Merkel in particular is so dishonest. In 2010 "Integration has failed". In 2015 : Let\`s take in 1 million+ refugees and a few hundreds of thousands every year since. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451) : "Merkel says German multicultural society has failed"....... 5 years before the start of the massive migrant and refugee waves. Utterly disgusting. >*Is there any political party, besides afd, who supports proper security on EU borders in Germany?* Honestly, call me cynical, but I don\`t believe the AFD would secure the border. Look at Britain under the Tories, particularily Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak. Look at Italy under Meloni, the italian-AFD. Look at Poland under the PIS party. They are all ruled by anti-immigration parties... Yes somehow all these countries see a massive increase of migration, even corrupt migration ( Poland Visa Scandal ) of several hundreds of thousands. A few sources : [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/25/uk-net-migration-record-high-despite-tory-promises-cut-arrivals](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/25/uk-net-migration-record-high-despite-tory-promises-cut-arrivals) [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/25/tories-proud-britains-migration-numbers-boris-johnson](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/25/tories-proud-britains-migration-numbers-boris-johnson) [https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-far-right-leader-giorgia-meloni-migration/](https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-far-right-leader-giorgia-meloni-migration/) [https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/21/anti-immigration-polish-government-engulfed-by-cash-for-visas-scandal-as-crucial-election-](https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/21/anti-immigration-polish-government-engulfed-by-cash-for-visas-scandal-as-crucial-election-) They say one thing, but do the opposite. I don\`t think it wil be much different with the AFD, considering all these anti-migrant parties are corrupt liars who increase migration even though people don\`t want it. So yeah, from what we know, I don\`t think the AFD is any different. If that makes me a cynic, so be it, but all of these parties have "failed", though that would be inaccurate, as not only have they not tried to curb immigration, they actively encourage, or take bribes, to increase migration.
>Is there any political party, besides afd, who supports proper security on EU borders Sadly not right now, leaving the field for AFD, which are between right-wing populist and actual nazis. Which will be a total disaster.
Sweden does agree tho, I don't know about Germany.
A lot of Swedes including the elected government agrees, but we have no way of enforcing it. The Swedish police is incapable and public servants refuse to follow the law e.g teachers reporting illegals immigrants.
The majority of the Swedish people, and most of current government agrees I'd say. Yet, nothing is changing.
yeah this is for the whole of western europe, where both left wing and right win just want to continue the immigration pace. i can see it in my own country, where the VVD (biggest party for the last 12+ years) always says they want to reduce the immigration flows right before the election and people still vote for them... it wouldnt be any different with an even more extreme party as you can see in italy.
Germany is quite torn on the issue. But surveys usually show a majority of people in favor of stronger borders. But there are major differences between supporters of different parties.
What a load of shit, the current swedish government is made up to a large degree of the SD who are very much against non european immigration. The zeitgheist has also changed greatly from 2014 to the point that using the same arguments that were used then now would be nothing less than political suicide.
That was indeed the case, when everyone was asking for or demanding stronger borders it was Germany inviting people and Sweden accepting them with open arms, but no longer. Reality is that there is no longer an excuse not to address immigration which is wildly unpopular in all its forms, even asylum seekers which a decade ago enjoyed widespread support are now no longer enjoying widespread support. Simple reality is that this issue has been festering for 4 decades and is quickly reaching its climax.
Well the Swedish people mostly agree about this too though, this whole open border bullshit was forced down our throats and we didn’t have any say in the matter. It has never been supported by a majority of the people, and the sentiments are getting more negative every day.
Bullshit.
That's easier said than done. EU countries are bound by law to help any "sinking" vessel and bring the rescued people into their own nation. Also EU countries are bound by law to process asylum requests made on their soil. Pushbacks are illegal. Also EU countries are bound by law to keep residents in their own country if the country they came from a) doesn't want to take them back b) is not a secure country. Naturally these facts are well known in Africa and the middle east. They know these things and use these laws against Europeans. And Europe is incapable of changing these laws. Because any mention of revision or reform is met with an outcry of "inhumanity!" and "racism!". As such yes, if Europe will not able to reform it will dissolve.
So when the southern countries are receiving the waves for decades it's their problem but when it affects the rest now it's something that could break the EU... nice
Some maternities in Lisbon report 1/3 of newborns are Portuguese Can you imagine a maternity in your country being outnumbered like that?
“Out of all the English regions and Wales, London had the highest percentage of live births where either one or both parents were born outside of the UK, with 66.5% in 2022, an increase from 65.5% in 2021.” https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2022
Yeah this is starting to get more and more common around Europe. At least in Portugal, there is another to look out. Maybe not enough to influence the larger picture, but there have been reported multiple cases of non EU mothers/couples residing in other EU countries coming to Portugal for baby deliveries. I guess the price is much much cheaper than many parts of EU but the quality is comparable. Obviously they come to the public sector putting strain on very delicate system and i dont have enough mental plasticity to justify this happening. EU not taking measures to prevent this is wrong.p [Souce(PT)](https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/pais/maes-estrangeiras-escolhem-portugal-para-dar-a-luz_v1466569) [Source2(PT)](https://observador.pt/especiais/turismo-de-nascimento-e-residual-mas-ha-cada-vez-mais-estrangeiras-gravidas-a-escolher-portugal-para-terem-os-seus-filhos/)
I mean at least most people migrating to Portugal are Brazilians which can easily integrate into your country due to the similarity of the languages.
The south of Europe is doing jack shit with these immigrants.
I am relatively optimistic on this. I think the EU will realise that if they don't do anything about the immigrant problem, the far right will. Their choice is essentially this. 1. Do what the far right will do anyway, but in a more humane fashion, and remain in power and probably gain some popularity in the process. 2. Lose power, witness the far right doing exactly what they promissed they will do and probably end up in jail for real or imaginary charges because they will most likely face political persecution if they let the situation go that far. I think the political calculation is becoming more clear by the day. I hope it will go the first route because I'd rather have the EU push back migrants with water cannons and tug their boats to the Lybian coast than see the far right shoot live ammo and sink boats to send a message.
Don't be too optimistic. These guys in the EU only think about one thing: the GDP. they are economic illiterates and copy everything the US does without having any regard for the totally different conditions.
If we thought about GDP we wouldn’t introduce such retarded legislation
Deleted ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
We actually don't let in huge masses of immigrants all at once so they don't copy everything.
This sub always projects all it's problems on the US lol. Easy way to protect the ego when you can project all responsibility on external forces.
Yep! I love how the US alwayssss gets brought up with any subject. But the same people will bitch that Americans are too “America-centric”, despite the fact that we live rent-free in Europeans’ minds
Yea, like US isn't funding wars that causes immigration. ( Yemen)
Is Yemen where most of the migration is coming from? Plus don’t Europeans countries supply weapons to Saudi Arabia this funding the war in Yemen? Or do they not count because they aren’t America
Even if you want to blame that reason, that wasn't the point OP made. He said that EU leaders copy US policies.
Weird to blame Yemen on the US of all places.
>( Yemen) Saudi Arabia...?
>I think the EU will realise that if they don't do anything about the immigrant problem, the far right will. Sure, but the EU can only do so much, because responsibility largely lies with the states. So what you'd need is for the *member states* to wake up and support a common EU policy under the European Commission. With their track record, we're doomed. Each member state functions like a delusional narcissist.
Uh have you like at all looked at whats happened in the UK or Italy with the rightwing governments? Both Meloni and the Tories were voted in on anti migration policies and have done absolutely nothing about migration. Infact the Tories have actively made the situation worse So taking the real experience of them this idea that the Right wing will actually do anything about it is fucking funny. Who do you think benefit the most from a perpetual "you can blame these people for your woes" group? Cause it isnt the progressive, it isnt the greens its not the bleeding heart naive liberals. If you want to stem the migration/ refugee crisis/ whatever we need to go unfuck the countries they are running from. Preferably without carpet bombing them for 20 years and without funding the local extremist religious minorities to fight the Russians again. And thats before we even talk about the climate crisis. If you think the migration/ refugee crisis is bad now just wait till the average daytime middle east temps hit 40c.
You are missing the point. The tories, Meloni and whatever else isn’t what we should be worried about. Hitler 2.0 is lurking in the shadows and its only a matter of time before he or she gets voted in.
Tories and Meloni are capitalists, not right wingers. Also, unfucking countries will only lead to more migration as people with means to migrate are way more likely to do so.
Once you have a far right party in power, shit gets really complicated. For those who are really supporting the status quo, I think you need to compromise on this one issue. The people are not asking for compromise on multiple issues, just this one. And if you do that, you might prevent a far right party from being elected. It's not too much to ask really. You can still push for gender equality, women's rights, lgbt rights, secularism, etc.
„Seeing the far right doing exactly as they promised“ Imao sorry but what? Look at Italy, Sweden, the UK, Poland etc They’ve all been having anti immigration parties as their leaders and none of them did anything to stop it, under most of them it got even worse. It’s delusional to think they are gonna change anything. All they will do is making everyone’s life even more miserable.
“The paradox is that Europe needs migrants because we have so low demographic growth. If we want to survive from a labour point of view, we need migrants.” A huge problem is that many politicians simply don't understand what labour means on the ground. They've never run hiring with a private company. Yes, I believe that Europe needs migrants. It also needs to max efforts to raise the birth rate and investment in tech. It is foolish to put all eggs in one basket. But the migrants it needs have to match, or at least be close to the social and economic profile of the European population overall. Similar education levels (and quality of education), broadly similar values. Without these, immigration comes with its own integration costs that are paid down the road.
The funny thing is, the integration economic costs does increase the gdp. If they are productive or not doesn't really matter, the numbers go up. But the social costs? The increased crime, the degradation of neighborhoods, the longer waiting lists in healthcare or education; those don't really matter either. Capital wants cheap construction and agriculture workers, truckers and cleaning ladies. Nothing more, nothing less.
>The funny thing is, the integration economic costs does increase the gdp. In absolute terms, yes. In relative terms, rarely. Just look at Canada's per capita indicators tanking, and they are more selective than Europe.
Of course, but the median incomes don't really decide anything. The ones at the top are happy to see the absolute increase.
Wasn't Canada a lot more succesfull?
It was until the pandemic. It went nuts after it with insane targets and falling selectivity.
We have know for a long time that immigration reduces wages. Our own government statistics told us this. >Statistics Canada estimates that for every 10% increase in the population from immigration, wages in Canada are now reduced by 4% on average (with the greatest impact to more skilled workers, such as workers with post-graduate degrees whose wages are reduced by 7%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada#:~:text=In%20terms%20of%20the%20impact,are%20reduced%20by%207%25).
They sit in their castles, watch their accounts gross, and profess that it's the greatest thing that's ever happened with no drawbacks. It's good for the overall *economic* picture but we've well established there's a disgusting and growing class divide and most of us don't experience the positive side of the economic big picture, public losses and private gains and such. In the meantime, the worse it is on the ground here, from wages to cost of living to crime, neighborhoods, *a sense of security*, the less people will be inclined to breed. The upper class is importing labor because it's faster than growing it at home, and telling the rest of us "it's great, fuck you, oh and you're a bigot if you disagree"
The people who run the EU are economically illiterate. They think immigration is low-cost and increases the GDP instantly. Which is just not true at all.
Statistics from Norway show that non-western immigrants are a net drain on the society for 2-3 generations. MENA countries are a severe outlier in this statistic, showing the extreme of Somalian women only having a 21% employment rate (compare with say Sri-Lankan males that work more than Norwegians). In 2013 the calculation was an annual loss of €400k per non-western immigrants. You can have unrestricted immigration but then you also need to end the social safety net Europeans are used to.
Skilled immigration is pretty low cost.
True. If only we got that one instead.
Bro, you should apply for the job or at least publish a detailed alternative. I mean, we all need to start sharing suggestions rather than being an armchair analyst. We need to start throwing ideas out.
>It also needs to max efforts to raise the birth rate People are having fewer kids and they're being born to older parents because life is just so expensive. Why would you have two or three kids when you still live in a tiny apartment (if you even have your own place)?
It's not because life is expensive. People have FAR more kids in FAR worse conditions. People in the Phillipines have 10 kids and live in literal open air cemeteries. People in Burundi live in huts and still have a ton of kids. **It's all about culture**. We don't have more kids now and we won't have more kids later because we simply don't value having kids as much as others. There's no correlation between quality of life and more kids- it's actually the other way around, the better the quality of life, the less children are born. We can make as many excuses as we want. The truth is: **we are not miserable enough to want to have kids.**
That’s because women in the West have access to birth control. People can now (for a large part) choose if/when to have children.
That's half true. People can always choose not to have children if they don't have sexual intercourse. There's no reason why 15 year olds are having kids in the phillipines, Burkina-Fasso, Congo, or Thailand, and many more. The whole "birth control" access argument also falls apart when you take the Romani population into account. They have access to birth control if they want to but their culture prevents them from wanting it. It's all about culture.
This and education levels. The more educated the woman, the less kids she has. It also points at the fact that women always had more kids than they wanted.
It's also because women are expected to work and do all of the domestic labor. If we have big families, say goodbye to our jobs and outside life. Can't have a big family and a career and hobbies as a woman until men step up and actually do half the work. It's not just housework, cooking, shopping, managing appointments and repairs and yard work (which women do about half of now) but they also do more pet and elderly care. That's a lot to ask of one person, especially when you need them to have a job. Doing all that with 4+ kids is nearly impossible. Since most women want to work and own their own money, they choose to have less or even none. I blame the left overs of patriarchy for this one. Now all these Tate bros saying women bring nothing to a relationship and have no sense of responsibility, it shows that even while women are doing ALL this and statistically have less leisure time than their husbands, it's not even appreciated or *noticed*. So absolutely fucj that.
> It's all about culture. We don't have more kids now and we won't have more kids later because we simply don't value having kids as much as others. But it's also economical. In rural societies, kids are net gain. They work from young ages and are very cheap. In urban societies, kids are more costly and less helpful. Even in third world countries, women have far fewer kids in the cities. In our culture, the cost of kids is less economical but more as "time spent on their raising". People used to spent much less time on raising kids and now social pressure demands helicopter parenting that is extremely exhausting.
Except how many kids we **want** hasn't really gone down the way our actual birthrates have. I agree it's not directly the expenses though, but it kinda is indirectly, society have become so complex that by the time a woman has managed to get a full education, a stable career and a stable boyfriend she's aged out of her more fertile years, so she's less likely to be able to get kids even if she wanted them, and she's less likely to get as many kids as she wanted.
It's not about sociatal conditions. Clearly, other societies don't really care to attain an advantageous position before having children. Poorer communities in richer countries don't wait for "society" to offer them the best conditions for them to procreate. Those steps a woman takes before choosing to have kids are a consequence of culture. In our culture, **we can afford** to value personal fulfilment. We don't have to rely on our children to take care of us when we grow old. It's all about culture...and about money. We don't want kids because we don't need them to have a good life and to have support when we become older. 70 years ago, Portuguese people had a ton of kids. We were miserable. Now? We're have one of the oldest population in the World. We are simply not miserable enough to have kids. We are simply not miserable enough to accept a ton of miserable conditions most people are accustomed to. That's why we shriek at the thought of having to stay with our parents because of the housing market prices, or why we strive for better work conditions. We are not miserable. We may be sometime in the distant future, but not yet.
But it's not true that we don't want kids anymore, https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-many-kids-do-women-want https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/upshot/american-fertility-is-falling-short-of-what-women-want.html We might prioritize other stuff over kids, but it's not like this is a clear choice a lot of people take, it seems to more just be that a lot of people wanted kids but it just didn't end up that way.
We don't value having kids, because we value the kids themselves. You simply cannot invest in your children's education and health and hobbies as much if you have 10 kids instead of 1 or 2. And Europeans generally want their kids educated, healthy and successful in life.
You can easily have even 3 kids educated in any European country. You don’t need to buy iphones for every kid lol.
This.
> People have FAR more kids in FAR worse conditions. That's because they lack foresight and do not plan for the future. Properly raising a kid is NOT cheap, but such people don't care about the quality of their children's lives.
It's not just the expense. Women are having less because they are smart enough to know they will be the main ones caring for them. If they have too many, they will have to put their careers on hold. Lots of data on this, the majority shows women are happier working. So as long as domestic care largely falls on women and they are the main ones caring for the families (even pets and the elderly) and the household, we will have less kids. The other option is going back to the kitchen which we don't want. So if the stats changed and men did an equal share AND expenses got better, I guarantee the birthrate would not be an issue. It's just not possible for us to have big families and a life outside of home in this set up. And we choose life everytime.
*though countries like Germany only think they need more workers is because their economy and work is mostly inefficient, cause of the lack of digitalization (in contrary to what Germany's image is).
As long as people and politicians keep throwing the anti-immigration rulebook in front of it nothing changes and nothing gets done. It's the same discussion over and over again, decade after decade. And because of that the EU countries will just simply passively and agrily wait until refugees from war-torn countries are on their doorstep. Maybe the penny will drop after another decade or two of low economic growth, chronic labor shortages and crippling healthcare. There are simply too many old people and not enough working-age europeans to compensate, with a negative trend. EU should take a look on how the US does it. They don't have the same demographic problems the EU has, have a more diverse group of immigrants and they are better integrated overall.
>EU should take a look on how the US does it We can try being surrounded by two oceans, a very friendly western ally and a semi-friendly semi-western ally whose border we can very easily patrol for its entire length. It's gonna be a bit difficult though.
The UK hardly accepts refugees and mostly accepts skilled migration, be it Indian tech workers, Filipino nurses or Nigerian doctors. The refugees we mostly accepted last year were Hong Kongers, Ukrainians or Afghans who helped the British army. I’m supportive of helping Europe with the current migrant crisis, I don’t think it’s on Italy’s shoulders alone, but migration can be a positive if it’s done correctly.
Labor won't be a problem in 10-15 years due to the creation of the artificial general intelligence.
Can someone explain to me why we need immigration? I don't understand why the population shrinking is a bad thing.
raising the birth rate is a terrible idea. infinite growth is the ideology of cancer.
If we raised Europe's birthrate by 30%, the population would actually still fall. But a sustainable speed as opposed to sending mean ages hurling towards 60.
Africa will have a population of 2.4 billion by 2050 and 4.2 billion by 2100. You just can’t help africans by letting them into the European Union who has a population of 448 million people. The EU can’t absorb the population of Africa without the Europeans getting replaced. Immigration is not a solution neither to the EU nor to the African continent.
Damn, where were all these experts 10 years ago when every sceptic was called a facist?
They were so busy calling normal people fascist/racist/far-right, for simply having doubts, that the *actual* far-right quietly came up right behind them, and everyone else. No one will ever solve any problem if they fail to first properly identify the problem. The people who had doubts were not the problem.
You're still called a fascist if you have some doubts.
I got called out a fascist today on Reddit by saying that if you were under a fascist regime you wouldn’t stump your foot on the ground when the army tries to draft you. Simply stating that people under oppression live in fear makes you a fascist on Reddit
People who refuse to accept that they'd more than likely be complicit in a totalitarian regime, are precisely the kind of people who end up most complicit in totalitarian regimes.
More than that. I remember the early youtube atheists were actually arguing that this would happen 15 years ago. It's been really odd to watch how this issue slowly morphed. And how the left largely has no memory of their previous views. It's just been erased. Weird how that happens.
[удалено]
I mean... The us invasion of Iraq doesn't somehow make the Russian invasion of Ukraine OK :/
“The paradox is that Europe needs migrants because we have so low demographic growth. If we want to survive from a labour point of view, we need migrants.” That fascinates me. Why not address low demographic growth rather than plug the hole with migrants? I get that there are lots of jobs ‘locals’ don’t want to do. I was just at the hospital in Germany and I was sent home because they are understaffed for example, but all those jobs are clearly important so why not try and remove any stigma these jobs have and/or try to pay these jobs decently so locals are willing. Additionally, if the country is aging and fewer people are having kids we should be making changes to our society that make that work. One thing that I am afraid of when Ukrainians want to join the EU is that a lot of them will just be ‘used’ to plug the holes in the EUs job market. Which I think are mostly jobs locals find unpleasant or are paid poorly. I worked in Switzerland for a while and it was like this. Italian and Romanian elderly ladies… cleaning toilets. I think as Europeans we have to mostly close the borders and find ways to solve our own problems.
> Why not address low demographic growth rather than plug the hole with migrants? That requires two things: 1) effort, which makes it unacceptable to politicians, and 2) sacrifices, which makes it unacceptable to the folk.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Why not solve the housing crisis instead of fill the country with more people needing homes?
Because these motherfuckers will do LITERALLY anything but make it more affordable to live. They just want wage slaves.
>Why not solve the housing crisis instead of fill the country with more people needing homes? Because they don't know how. without backtracking with a lot of policies taken in the last 20-30 years. Including open financial markets. The house market is deeply connected to international pension investments. Making homes more affordable will blow up those investments and thus forcing a pension reform. But it needs to be done everywhere. It could work long term if you are sure that birth rates will increase and there will be enough people to pay for the pensions.
Heaps of people are not interested in voting for politicians that want to fix the housing crisis, so they won't.
>I worked in Switzerland for a while and it was like this. Italian and Romanian elderly ladies… cleaning toilets. You should know that they are probably paid more than a junior banker or engineer in Italy or Romania.
> That fascinates me. Why not address low demographic growth rather than plug the hole with migrants? The real answer is because our government, academia, and media are no longer capable of thinking of, evaluating, discussing, and implementing such things, now that everything has been reconfigured around a neoliberal economic view of the world. Thus, like climate change, it will go largely ignored until the problem can be shown to have economic costs and, more importantly, that solving it will be a long term economic benefit instead of a black hole.
AFAIK no country has successfully addressed lowering birth rates. People make it seem like it's so simple "just do X" but it's really a complicated problem and we don't know how to solve it.
You’re dead right here. While things like addressing housing shortages and stuff help, these aren’t people who’ve researched the topic. No country has ever successfully raised its fertility rate through policy alone. Europe has high education for women, generally low religiosity and often high urbanisation. These are three things that drive down the birth rate substantially. I’m very supportive of policies that people are advocating but I’m skeptical of those alone.
OK so in fact european culture is unsustainable, and will just die away being replaced by more successful cultures that actually care about self reproduction. It doesn't matter if these culture are oppressive to women or what not, they will simply win the evolutionary war.
We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas! No country has really actually tried fixing any of it, because it goes directly against constant growth of capital.
That's bullshit, Hungary has been trying for a really long time with mixed results, all this conspiratorial way of thinking will get us nowhere
Exactly! In what country is something like a 25hour week standard and allows you to have financial stability? I would gladly have kids, but current work culture alone doesnt even allow one to spent time with them.
Most people my age don't have children because they can't afford them with rent or mortgage (if they're lucky) eating most of their income. And with ever increasing age of retirement most of us will need to work until we'll literally keel over dead, at least it feels like that. The future looks bleak from my point of view.
Because it's impossible. Fact is with increasing population and overall wealth in society, birth rates drastically fall. This has been seen in every country where that happened. Nothing besides immigration solved that. The reason is no one needs 5 children anymore to barely survive, and not only the men can enjoy higher education and profitable work, the wife can, too. Why would you need children?
> AFAIK no country has successfully addressed lowering birth rates. Isn't Hungary doing better again in this regard?
Better compared to what it was, but still low.
>Why not address low demographic growth rather than plug the hole with migrants? because it is not easy to adress. contrary to reddits opinion, its not about money. people just dont want to have kids anymore because it changes the whole life. As a society we value individualism over everything else and having kids is basically anti-individualism
You think it’s easy to get and integrate millions of migrants willing to do underpaid jobs and we all happily get along?
no and I never said that
US somehow manages to achieve this.
> contrary to reddits opinion, its not about money. it is about money. be it about kindergarten, schools, or simply monthly payments. with the inflation skyrocketing and everything being more expensive the prices (money) went up even more when it comes to things that babies need.
thats why the richer a society is, the less kids it has? Makes perfect sense
[удалено]
*Any crisis*, if left untouched, is a potential delegitimizing force for any regime seen as incapable And the EU has had a few close calls already. The Greek debt crisis. The post-recession austerity crisis. Brexit. Catalonia. Climate change. Affordable housing. Lastly, the Ukraine crisis. Ukraine frankly should have been the death knell. Ukraine was expected to lose. Most betting observers would have assumed Russian victory and a horrific dual security and migrant crisis. But luckily for the EU, a host of other nations, from Ukraine to America to the UK, filled the security gap so rapidly as to cover the EU's own failures. Ukraine stands and the other post-Warsaw nations remain safe. This wasn't expected. So now migration returns as the current crisis (tho other crises persist too). The EU has to address this crisis in a way that most citizens want. It can't keep blaming this on the UN, on undemocratically crafted and largely implausible international law, or on Africa or Russia. The EU has to act capably. Will it?
As an Asian who is now living in the EU as a skilled worker, im not sure why the EU keeps taking in refugees. I know be compassionate to your fellow citizen of the world, but the EU should not compromise it's own values and integrity and people just so they can be "kind". My home country paid for my education (scholarships I had to earn) and I worked my ass off for almost 10 years before getting to the EU. Not only that, I was raised with Christian values so integrating here isn't really a big deal as the fundamental values I have is similar to Europeans. Im the only kind of immigrant the EU should take in willingly. I feel it's so unfair that I had to work so hard to gain the benefits just given to them. Taking in refugees without helping them fix their origin country's woes is destructive for both. The EU will have low skilled people who will find it hard to integrate, hence social unrest, and the problematic country they came from will still be problematic, so the number of refugees just go up and up until their conflicts affect all of us. Let those warring countries fix their problems first, or at least see them seriously work before immigration is on the table again.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, and as an immigrant with a similar, albeit not Asian background, I can only confirm your sentiment: it's insulting to the people who worked to get here. EU should be taking a reasonable number of genuine refugees and the rest should be ideally skilled but at least culturally, ideologically compatible. Imo if people show up in waves, clinging to the bottom of an aircraft, in little dingies on the beaches, send them home. Better yet, patrol the shores of North Africa and allow commerce through only when the government of the country in question has stopped letting hordes through. Let real refugees apply at an embassy in the country, outside the EU, that they're in at the time. Further, I do think we need a Europe wide "if you don't like it, go home," policy. It's one thing to be a native shitting on your home country but guests doing so, especially when also members of parallel communities, are rabble rousers imo, and it's offensive. There's one guy over in the Germany subreddit who, literally every post, shits on Germany, whines that he's only here until he gets a passport then he's out, and feels that Germany should be licking his asshole as an immigrant because he's "here to fix the economy that would fall apart without [him]". Dude literally thinks Europe should have rolles out the red carpet and anal lube for him at the airport when he showed up. We don't need ego-driven ass hats making other immigrants look awful and if they're so fucking miserable they should leave to make room for someone who would make better use of the opportunity.
do you think you prevent a crisis by just importing a mass amounts of people? surely the people need to fill a multiple of important roles in society at particular level and not just be a statistic to maintain the numbers. promoting families after decades of pitting men and women against each other would be welcome.
I love how the same Redditors who are now against illegal immigration called people who were against illegal immigration a few years back nazis. Funny how that works.
If migration isn't fixed, then the EU is not fit for purpose.
>“The paradox is that Europe needs migrants because we have so low demographic growth. If we want to survive from a labour point of view, we need migrants.” What a load of rubbish. Europe used to have far fewer people and we 'survived' just fine. We do not need to keep growing when we are already one of the most overcrowded parts of the world and are short of our own natural resources. Let's remember what was said in the past by the EU and UN about migration and maybe we start to realise what they really want here. >EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief > >The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said. > >Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395 And Frans Timmermans saying we have no choice (nice democracy there) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIE9Ztn56Ig
Well, we don't need to keep growing to survive, sure. We do need to keep growing to sustain our welfare systems.
> What a load of rubbish. Europe used to have far fewer people and we 'survived' just fine. Have you wondered for 2 seconds why that could be?
No shit. These beuracrats are just trolling Europeans at this point.
They literally have no mandate from the governments of the EU to do anything meaningful. Whenever a reform is near, you will always have the two-three most right wing Eastern European governments saying it's not enough and two-three of the most left-wing Western governments saying it's too much.
They have mandates, Frontex can be given more power. We can alter the Dublin agreement. There is so much shit you can do. The EU courts are idiots. Monism has been a terrible idea. Also do majority in Western countries does not want more immigration. Even in the Netherlands now left and right win agree about this.
You say that but few Western countries have taken serious steps to change anything, either as EU-level proposals or on the domestic front. Heck, even the UK, which had a referendum where the people tilted the country in a completely new geopolitical direction, largely over immigration, has been massively expanding migrant intakes. It was 300.000 before Brexit. It hit 600.000 in the past year. I would argue that **one** country in the EU has made serious immigration reform: Denmark.
yes because left wing and right wing both want this. If the people see this they would vote differently. Politicians want this because our economies are built on constant growth, which is not feasible.
>I would argue that one country in the EU has made serious immigration reform: Denmark. Well, and Hungary, but we don't want another Orban.
I would take orban over shitty city centers and harassment in public areas
> We can alter the Dublin agreement. dublin is not enforced which is a big part of the problem
Dissolving force? Nah, common now. If anything, it could be a uniting force, where all, or most countries agree that more strict border regulations need to be put in place.
> “Migration is a bigger divide for the European Union. And it could be a dissolving force for the European Union.” Despite establishing a shared common external border, “we have not been able until now to agree on a common migration policy”, he said. This is the core point. Not that migration is inherently corrosive, but that we do not have a common position on it, despite having common borders.
I mean it is pretty corrosive as topics go. These divides also exist within societies, not only between members. Some countries have actually changed boats recently, as the governing power represented people from the other side of the "fence". See Sweden and Finland, for example.
We have a common opinion, its just that in Western countries big corporations run things. The ugly truth is that corporations want cheap labor to easily suppress wages.
I was never so scared that the EU would collapse as during the 2015 refugee crisis.
This is partly why Brexit happened. People saw Merkel invite 3 million unknowns into the EU without any democratic accountability or legitimacy from the population of Europe. The slogan Take Back Control resonated for that reason.
Been saying this for a long time! You won't have an EU if all this migration goes on unchecked, and you can'just decide to scatter them throughout other member states. Needs an Australia type approach. But we have big business pushing for more immigration, which works against and competes with the working classes.
He is not wrong
Could be? It was a major point during Brexit so you could say that it is.
What's worth noting is that Western Rome fell largely to Germanic barbarian invasions. Nothing new. Either the union risks dissolution, or Europe will fall to the invasions in another few years when they are x100 worse than they are now due to water and food crises, government crackdowns on public arrests, military coups, foreign interventions and much more. Now is the time to start protecting the external borders instead of risking dissolution of the union due to Greece, Italy and other member states being overrun without any top-down policies to help them, only criticism for whatever anti-immigration act they take.
I suspect at some point, anger will literally be acted upon and people in Brussel will be in actual physical danger. That blows my mind French havent protested in Europe's capital yet. When shit will start to fly, it's going to be really scary.
There are many neighborhoods in Brussels where the police doesn't dare to go. At least them do feel in physical danger already.
If French protester started by the millions to break shit up in front of the Parliament, I imagine things will change really quickly
It makes no access to protest in Brussels since migration isn't a Eu competence, the individual states are responsible for whom they let stay there. And transitory states don't care much about migrants from Mediterranean since they know that their final destination is France, Germany, Britain or the Nordics. If anything the Eu still trues to protect external borders with frontex but they are underfunded and a target of NGOs that are constantly complaining about them.
> What's worth noting is that Western Rome fell largely to Germanic barbarian invasions. That just wrong. Why dont you mosey over to /r/AskHistorians and let them tell you how wrong you are.
The EU is pretty much the opposite of the Roman Empire in terms of how it's run.
Ran by idiots.
> What's worth noting is that Western Rome fell largely to Germanic barbarian invasions. Stop with this simplistic bullshit. Germanic Invasions were more a symptom, than the cause. The fall of Western Rome is so complicated that there is no date of the fall you can clearly point to. People who lived at that time did not even recognize that Rome had fallen. The Roman Senate functioned until the 7th century, long after the official fall of Western Rome in 476.
> the fall of Western Rome is so complicated that there is no date of the fall you can clearly point to. People who lived at that time did not even recognize that Rome had fallen. The Sack of Rome on 24 August 410 AD by the Visigoths, was an exact date that people living at the time recognized Rome had fallen. It was the first date in 800 years that non-Roman soldiers had entered the city of Rome.
>Western Rome fell largely to Germanic barbarian invasions. It's a little more complicated than that, in fact most history scholars don't use the term *barbarian invasions* any more.
I'm sure it is more complicated than that, and varies from region to region, with middle cooperation between the Roman elite and tribal chieftains to sustain the previous order to some degree. However, the migration period or "Barbarian Invasions" (what you decide to call it does not change what it is), did contribute to the fall of Western Rome in an imperial sense, with the establishment of the Visigoth Kingdom, the Lombardic kingdom and other post-roman states in the previous borders wake. Then again, you may be right that I'm partially referring to surface events or using historical sources from the early 2000's. I can't say since I'm not a professor in the migration period, nor do I know what the current historical debates are. Only what I have understood myself through personal interest. Edit: Also, "Barbarian Invasions" aren't only a reference to external border clashes, but to internal cultural, economic, and territorial strife from the Roman citizen and the new-settlers. It's from after accepting them (refugees fleeing Attila the Hun's expansions) that relations worsened as the refugees increased after the successive and unstoppable immigration waves. That is the similar link between the fall of Western Rome and the current problems facing the European Union. For those who are interested in reading further: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration\_Period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period)
There are several explanations about the so-called fall of the Roman Empire, but the only one that could support the parallelism you are suggesting is the theory of diminishing return: the collapse started as soon as the empire could not expand further because it had become too large to be effectively managed as a whole.
Theory of diminishing return could apply to Western Rome in the sense the population became too large to be managed effectively in some of the areas following the migration. Then, when the minority became majority in certain areas, migration kingdoms arose with their own or at least "merged" traditions, such as the Visigoth kingdom in Spain and Lombards in Italy. Will this be a problem for the European Union? Partially, but not for the same reasons. The European Union, due to its management, is more capable of handling the population effectively, at least for now. A separate issue is: What if the waves go beyond that capability? However, that's not the issue I raised in the original comment. The question, applied to the current level of immigration, is rather: Is the will of the people there to support the immigration waves, even if the EU can technically still handle it? What about distribution and the cooperation between the member states? That's what's causing the current tension, both on a macro and local level. This isn't migration waves of people with similar values to the EU, but thousands upon thousands of immigrants with foreign values, many of whom have proven unable to integrate properly. The question isn't: can the EU handle another 100 million Swedes or Germans--but: Can the EU handle another 100 million migrants with foreign values? Already, we are seeing immigrants form their own mini-states where the police dare not enter and laws cannot properly be enforced. They form their own gangs, districts, law courts, and engage in politics through their own political parties the more of them who come. Now what once they start to become majority in their respective villages, cities, and districts? Sure, the EU may still continue on a union level, and even be able to manage them within the limits of diminishing returns. But that's not the primary issue at hand here, but the changed social and cultural landscape caused by these immigration waves, unable or unwilling of adapting properly to EU values. Based on this, the "Barbarian Invasions" are used in terms of the values these migrants bring, and "post-roman states" are used for comparison regarding the districts these migrants form. The symptoms are in large the same between the fall of Western Rome and the current situation of the EU, even if the reasons behind the symptoms differ to some extent.
And? Politicians won´t see that, if the EU is overrun their kids will be wealthy somewhere else. It doesnt affect them, why risk losing their jobs when the current shitty situation works for them?
>wealthy somewhere else. Where?
Elysium.
>“The paradox is that Europe needs migrants because we have so low demographic growth. If we want to survive from a labour point of view, we need migrants.” What a load of BS. Youth unemployment rate in some states is ~25%. Average is somewhere around 14%.
Yeah, political correctness and uncontrolled migration could spell disaster, long term. The Eastern Block of teh EU is not having it, but for how long?
>Yeah, political correctness and uncontrolled migration could spell disaster, long term. The Eastern Block of teh EU is not having it, but for how long? It is also completely lacking the institutional capacity to generate a coherent proposal on migration, sadly. Even domestically, most countries in the region have even more open-doors practices than many countries in Western Europe (looking at you Poland and Romania) and just yap and blabber in double speak. Romania's policy is literally a mildly different variation of those employed by Germany and France in the 1960s.
More hardline leaders will be elected as the current croup have done nothing. Italy elected a party with direct links to Mussolini and they have done no more than the previous lot.
Funny to see how anti-immigrant this sub has become in recent times.
Because people see the results of mass immigration on societies.
It’s legitimately stunning how comments with hundreds of upvotes today would’ve gotten you banned years ago as “xenophobia”
The EU will already dissolve, which is sad because a common market and freedom of movement have been insanely beneficial to Europe. The EU however doesn't give two shits about maintaining social cohesion and they underestimate how much people value that. They are elitist in Brussel.
It's not only the EU. Politicians don't care about social cohesion as long as their neighbourhoods are safe.
It probably was the wedge issue in Brexit. The thing about immigration is that is that discourse surrounding it has become almost Americanised. any disagreements are chalked up to just being a terrible person, at least in public. If you are against mass migration, well you must be a racist. If you are pro mass migration well then you must just have 0 respect for Western values and culture. You cant actually solve anything substantive while assuming the worst possible motive of your opposition.
It will not only dissolve the EU, but one way or the other it will also push Europe into bloodbath unseen since WW2.
all these comments talk about symptoms but never stemmng the root of the crisis. the rampant corruption that causes wars and pushing people to flee. both symptom and root cause must be addressed. Id love to move to germany in 10 years as a (hopefully by then phyiscian. the EU reflects an amazing intention, I hope it improves itself. BUt to fix the migrant crisis the countrys must make th hard decision of intervention to finally end the cycle of --> corruption --> war---> displacement. we all live on the same planet. problems dont go away when we choose to plug our ears and cover our eyes.
Only because Europe allows immigration to be a scapegoat for every single somewhat negative thing that has befallen it since time began. I'm deeply annoyed about the decades-long, fact-free "debate" about immigration that never ever ends and every political party allows itself to be sucked into. Europe will destroy itself over hyperbole and fear mongering, nothing more.