it’s crazy difficult to have a clear view of what is happening while it is happening. this is called the fog of war: all sides try to push their narratives, sometimes with good reason, sometimes because they believe in a personal gain, sometimes out of stupidity and dumbness. anyways, the situation is confusing as heck.
the original reason why migration exists is neoliberalism: the commercialization of everything and everyone. in this view, migrants are potential labor force and can help push down wages in domestic labor markets. somehow the left has become convinced that this is, in fact, a good thing, because human rights or something. just that many people die on the journey (IIRC about 1-5%) so if there was no migration in the first place, these migrants would probably still be alive. ( https://www.unhcr.org/us/news/briefing-notes/unhcr-data-visualization-mediterranean-crossings-charts-rising-death-toll-and )
Just heard the EU commissioner for migration say that by putting asylum seekers into prison they are “basically saving lives” by deterring them from even trying to get here. Disgusting POS. How you could spin it that way is beyond me.
Sounds good. This is a way to prevent far-right parties taking control, whose policies would be harsher toward migrants.
What an oddly defeatist approach to policy. Like herding Jews into ghettos because Nazis would be worse. Shouldn’t policy be judged on its intrinsic merits rather than its supposed value for placating racists?
That’s pretty much all panthera_ contributes with: theories about how the best way to stop bullying far right abusers up to and including the Israeli government is to give them what they want and hope they never ask for more 🙄
Not surprising, considering how successful appeasement has been in the past!
Incorrect analogy. The Nazis came to power because the democratic Weimar Republic couldn’t control inflation. Preserving a country’s cultural identity does have intrinsic merit. A flood of migrants of different cultures could create discord. It’s better to only admit those with needed skills. This would increase diversity while preserving cultural identity.
I knew I already saw that underhanded racism somewhere…
No, it’s not racism. Racism is the belief that a race is superior. A country wanting to preserve its cultural identity is not necessarily racist although some far-right groups could be. It would be smart for a country to only permit people with needed skills to enter. This would preserve the cultural identity of the country as well as increasing diversity.
Okay, but why pretend your noble goal is to “prevent far-right parties taking control” when in fact you are now espousing the very same talking points they are and enthusiastically endorsing them?
Personifying a “country,” presuming it has a monolithic “cultural identity” that might be preserved and is under threat from “outsiders” is an ultranationalist, deeply xenophobic point of view.
Would it be “smart” for the Berlin government to only accept people with “needed skills” from Hamburg? Maybe, in some sense? But that’s not the point. The point is that a government shouldn’t use violence to restrict people’s freedoms unless they pose an immediate and direct threat.
No, the immigration policies of centrist should be milder than the far-right parties. What’s wrong with wanting to preserve a country’s culture? Xenophobic refers to a dislike of people from other countries. Wanting to preserve a country’s cultural identity doesn’t equate to disliking people from other countries. Such a person might like the cultures of other countries and want them preserved. By only permitting a small number of migrants to enter, the cultural identity of a country is preserved while increasing diversity.
Open borders lead to discord. Migrants are simply prevented from entering. There is no violence.
