Migrant ship docks in Valencia, Spain; after being rejected by Italy and Malta

[All Along The Watchtower]

European countries living up to their anti-immigrant caricatures I see.

Now if only we Americans could send our own demented racist "populists" to somewhere where they'd feel more comfortable demographically. They'd be happier, and so would I!

[Velasco]

The only way to make sure this scenario does not happen is to restrict immigration as much as possible. If we open the doors now, we are almost sure more people will come too.

That's not the way. What's the solution proposed by right-wing populists, making Europe a bunker state? For how long? At what cost? Would you sacrifice democracy in exchange for a false sense of security? Is Europe ready for Fascism?

We are much more likely to sacrifice democracy when the multicultural experiment pushed by our elites goes horribly wrong (and it will go horribly wrong if, G-d forbid, nothing changes) than when we close our borders to protect what we have: our countries and our democracies.

Would you sacrifice democracy in exchange for a country where native people are the minority, which you desperately seem to want? Or would you rather keep democracy, but maintain our current demographic status-quo, which you seem to hate?

Sorry but the claim that our elites are pushing for some kind of "multicultural experiment" sounds rather strange. Do you think we are victims of some conspiracy? Social engineering perhaps? Really? Claiming that I want anything "desperately" is ridicolous. I have no particular interest in one "demographic status-quo" or another. Refusing to embrace xenophobic ideas is an act of love, not hate. We should accept the fact that reality is changing. Healthy societies evolve and are dynamic. Societies closed in themselves are stagnant and decadent. Migratory movements exist since the dawn of humanity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Selfishness is not caring about people outside Europe. Our continent is not floating in space. We have neighbours and interact with them. War and other disasters in Africa and the Middle East are not unfamiliar to us. We are responsible in a greater of lesser degree, because our governments' actions have triggered or worsened troubled situations. We cannot afford to look away. Claiming that humanitarian concerns imply that we don't care for ourselves is a falacy. On the other hand, we haven't reached the point in which "native population" is a minority in Europe. We are not even close. Another falacy is that we are on the verge of being invaded.

New Austria poll on that issue:

We all love austriaposting, don't we?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, I'd like to address a very specific point: genuine refugees from war-torn/collapsing countries. If you take harsher line against the other kind of migrants, is is justificable for rich and stable Europe to turn her back on them? Let them f**king die or drown?

I'm asking because people tends to put refugees and immigrants in the same bag.

And yes, I've heard "neighbouring countries should do it" line, but we don't live in a should-land.

[palandio]

OK, I'd like to address a very specific point: genuine refugees from war-torn/collapsing countries. If you take harsher line against the other kind of migrants, is is justificable for rich and stable Europe to turn her back on them? Let them f**king die or drown?

Whom are you asking?

I can only speak for myself.
For individually persecuted people there should be the possibility to apply for asylum in the EU from both inside or outside. For these people there should be no upper limits (at least until now the numbers have never been high anyways).
For refugees from war-torn or collapsing countries there should be contingents for both temporary and permanent resettlement. Participants would generally apply for these programs from outside the EU. I think that we have the duty to take our share, but only within certain limits.
Deporting people who entered the EU irregularly would be the most effective mean to prevent that more of them drown or enter dangerous countries like Libya.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would add that many people from different political backgrounds put refugees and immigrants in the same bag, for all kinds of motivations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When there is a huge refugee crisis like in the Syrian case, some of the smaller neighbors (Lebanon, Jordan) will get into difficulties, and that has nothing to do with "should do", they are already doing as much as they can. In my opinion (probably not representative) allowing a certain contingent of vetted refugees to come to e.g. Germany in a controlled manner would have been a good decision. But then, after we have taken our share, we cannot and should not do it all alone. (I'm not saying that e.g. Germany is the only country that has done something, look at Lebanon, Jordan, but also Sweden, Greece, Austria...) Finally I think that we should not force other countries to take in refugee contingents.

[ingemann]

European countries living up to their anti-immigrant caricatures I see.

Now if only we Americans could send our own demented racist "populists" to somewhere where they'd feel more comfortable demographically. They'd be happier, and so would I!

you can really feel the slimy smugness here.

I have nothing against the fact that USA do nothing for refugees, but when Americans; citizens in a country which takes in less refugees than Sweden a country with 1/30 of the American population, talk big about other countries not doing enough, the hypocrisy becomes so ridiculous that it's almost hilarious.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Who's native people? If you want to keep non-native people out, should you quit the EU which allows Italians/Spaniards to arrive? Or are we talking about a different type of native people, in which case what distinguishes Jews (clearly native to Europe for well over 1k years) from Arabs (less long-standing, but equally "non-native")?

Migration of Europeans to other European countries is fine (as long as neighborhoods don't completely turn into foreign-dominated areas): Europeans tend to integrate perfectly well within other European countries. Ashkenazi Jews have been in Europe for so long (Ashkenazi means German...) that we have become European over time. Only larpers would insist otherwise. Arabs just aren't native to Europe and tend to integrate very poorly in European societies.

I dunno, a lot of eastern Europeans got very bad press during the 2000s or so in the UK, at least.

[EPG]

Who's native people? If you want to keep non-native people out, should you quit the EU which allows Italians/Spaniards to arrive? Or are we talking about a different type of native people, in which case what distinguishes Jews (clearly native to Europe for well over 1k years) from Arabs (less long-standing, but equally "non-native")?

Migration of Europeans to other European countries is fine (as long as neighborhoods don't completely turn into foreign-dominated areas): Europeans tend to integrate perfectly well within other European countries. Ashkenazi Jews have been in Europe for so long (Ashkenazi means German...) that we have become European over time. Only larpers would insist otherwise. Arabs just aren't native to Europe and tend to integrate very poorly in European societies.

I dunno, a lot of eastern Europeans got very bad press during the 2000s or so in the UK, at least.

Yes, this. I feel that in the era of the EU four freedoms, internet and social media linking people to home, there is actually very little integration of EU citizens in other EU countries, in my experience. Only if you get married to a local, and even then, it depends on the society, i.e. is this a place where you can make friends in your 30s.

[Devout Centrist]

Who's native people? If you want to keep non-native people out, should you quit the EU which allows Italians/Spaniards to arrive? Or are we talking about a different type of native people, in which case what distinguishes Jews (clearly native to Europe for well over 1k years) from Arabs (less long-standing, but equally "non-native")?

Migration of Europeans to other European countries is fine (as long as neighborhoods don't completely turn into foreign-dominated areas): Europeans tend to integrate perfectly well within other European countries. Ashkenazi Jews have been in Europe for so long (Ashkenazi means German...) that we have become European over time. Only larpers would insist otherwise. Arabs just aren't native to Europe and tend to integrate very poorly in European societies.

I dunno, a lot of eastern Europeans got very bad press during the 2000s or so in the UK, at least.

Hell, I remember Certain People talking very badly about Polish and Romanian immigrants during the Brexit campaign

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

New boy-band called "Visegrad-5" with their new album "Migrants out !":

I haven’t seen something this low energy in quite some time

Tender actually sent me the link to his post.

[ingemann]

Who's native people? If you want to keep non-native people out, should you quit the EU which allows Italians/Spaniards to arrive? Or are we talking about a different type of native people, in which case what distinguishes Jews (clearly native to Europe for well over 1k years) from Arabs (less long-standing, but equally "non-native")?

Migration of Europeans to other European countries is fine (as long as neighborhoods don't completely turn into foreign-dominated areas): Europeans tend to integrate perfectly well within other European countries. Ashkenazi Jews have been in Europe for so long (Ashkenazi means German...) that we have become European over time. Only larpers would insist otherwise. Arabs just aren't native to Europe and tend to integrate very poorly in European societies.

I dunno, a lot of eastern Europeans got very bad press during the 2000s or so in the UK, at least.

I honestly saw it as a way to talk against immigration without it being a "racist" issue by being against the immigration of swarthy and brown people.

Our attitude in Denmark are different, while a lot of people aren't happy about all the East Europeans coming to Denmark, it have not become a major issue, because their crime are relative low, they give a surplus to the Danish state budget and they don't create a lot of drama.

[DavidB.]

I dunno, a lot of eastern Europeans got very bad press during the 2000s or so in the UK, at least.

Not only in Britain: I vividly remember the PVV's stupid campaign against Central and Eastern European immigrants (mostly Poles), and the PvdA didn't mind coming up with PVV-like statements when it came to Polish immigrants either. I have always disliked this. There have been some issues here and there, but these are completely uncomparable to the problems with groups whose cultures differ much more, and Poles are nowadays widely regarded as hard-working, respectful people.

Sorry but the claim that our elites are pushing for some kind of "multicultural experiment" sounds rather strange. Do you think we are victims of some conspiracy? Social engineering perhaps? Really?

I don't think it is a conspiracy, but I do think that it could very well be the case that political leaders in EU member states are much more open about the demographic consequences of their policies towards each other than in public.

And, of course, there is the occasional slip of the tongue. Only two weeks ago, prominent Flemish liberal politician Herman De Croo (Open VLD) was jubilant over the fact that within 13 years, 70% of voters in Antwerp will have a migration background: "bye bye, [Flemish nationalist politician] Bart De Wever!" I fear that establishment politicians use such language much more often in the privacy of their own rooms.

Claiming that I want anything "desperately" is ridicolous. I have no particular interest in one "demographic status-quo" or another. Refusing to embrace xenophobic ideas is an act of love, not hate. We should accept the fact that reality is changing. Healthy societies evolve and are dynamic. Societies closed in themselves are stagnant and decadent. Migratory movements exist since the dawn of humanity.

So you have no particular preference for any demographic situation whatsoever. In that case, if I were you, I would look at having a demographic situation which is most likely to lead to as little tensions as possible, a situation that is as good for the economy as possible, and a situation in which the future of our open, democratic systems is ensured. All across Europe, we see that "refugees" and immigrants from Africa and the MENA region are often drains on the welfare state, engage in crime much more than natives; we see that their behavior often causes tensions with native populations. The preferred option seems clear: limit mass immigration as much as possible.

I have nothing against reality changing. I like having an iPhone, a lease bike, an internet connection, and Polish neighbors. But I have something against changes that are not an improvement of my society and my country. Immigration from Africa and the MENA region generally belongs to that latter category. It has nothing to do with prejudice. The results from all across Europe are already in. It doesn't work. We already agreed that these immigration crises could put an enormous amount of pressure on our democracies. Do you really wish to risk losing our freedom and our democracy while you claim not to have a preference for a more multicultural society over a more monocultural one?

Selfishness is not caring about people outside Europe. Our continent is not floating in space. We have neighbours and interact with them. War and other disasters in Africa and the Middle East are not unfamiliar to us. We are responsible in a greater of lesser degree, because our governments' actions have triggered or worsened troubled situations. We cannot afford to look away. Claiming that humanitarian concerns imply that we don't care for ourselves is a falacy. On the other hand, we haven't reached the point in which "native population" is a minority in Europe. We are not even close. Another falacy is that we are on the verge of being invaded.

By the end of this century, Dutch people without a post-WW2 migration background might well be a minority in the Netherlands (though this depends on the course of action our governments will now embark on; click "onbegrensd", "percentages" and then "vernieuwen" for the worst-case scenario). Small numbers of immigrants are welcome, but it has gone too far: this is immigration on an unprecedented scale.

Indeed, we are not floating in space, and we should help people in need, but we also have a right to maintain our cultures and to keep control over our homelands. The idea that there is a dichotomy between Europe taking in millions of people over the course of this century on the one hand and "looking away" on the other hand is a fallacy.

[Velasco]

Sorry but the claim that our elites are pushing for some kind of "multicultural experiment" sounds rather strange. Do you think we are victims of some conspiracy? Social engineering perhaps? Really?

I don't think it is a conspiracy, but I do think that it could very well be the case that political leaders in EU member states are much more open about the demographic consequences of their policies towards each other than in public.

And, of course, there is the occasional slip of the tongue. Only two weeks ago, prominent Flemish liberal politician Herman De Croo (Open VLD) was jubilant over the fact that within 13 years, 70% of voters in Antwerp will have a migration background: "bye bye, [Flemish nationalist politician] Bart De Wever!" I fear that establishment politicians use such language much more often in the privacy of their own rooms.

I dislike Flemish nationalists very much, but in my opinion De Croo's statements are stupid. That establishment politician" should realize that immigration related issues are very sensible and raise concern among the population. Such statements only contribute to give ammunition to the opposite camp. Said this, my opinion is that demographic changes are not the consequence of particular policies pursued by the "establishment". It's much more complex than that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is when desires differ from reality. You may think that a particular demographic situation is less prone to create tensions than another, or is better for economy. We have to deal with tensions already, regarding the integration of immigrants. It's an unresolved question with serious social and economic implications. Simultaneously, we have to deal with the migration flow towards Europe. So we have to tackle a problem inside our societies and another problem outside our borders. It's an important and very complex challenge. There is too much at stake for us to be left to demagogues. The regulation of migrant flow must be operated at European level, coordinating the efforts of the different nation states. Immigrants will continue to move and in many regards that's beyond our control. My desire is that our governments find a way to regulate migration flow in the best way possible, as well as to integrate the immigrant groups that settle in our countries.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You claim that your rejection of African and Middle Eastern immigrants is unrelated with prejudice, but it's hard to believe. It's obvious that Polish are closer to the Dutch than Syrian people, culturally speaking. Greater differences make integration more difficult in some cases. I won't deny that there are problems, but not all the immigrants coming from Africa or the Middle East are unintegrated. The focus is always on the people with more integration difficulties, not on the fully integrated people with these backgrounds. Also, there's some disgusting xenophobic propaganda trying to present them as potential rapists or something worse. In my opinion this propaganda is not only unacceptable: it would be the trigger of further tensions. That's one of the reasons why I dislike far-right populists (I'm not accusing you). Another reason is the simplicity of their recipes to tackle a very complex problem; another one is their implicit cruelty and inhumanity. As for changes in society, they are inevitable. Given that we have to coexist with people with other origins and backgrounds, it'd be better for us helping them to integrate as well as making an effort to understand their particular circumstances. These efforts are not incompatible with preserving our heritages and backgrounds (I'm not advocating for "cultural relativism", which I dislike). Opening our societies does not imply their destruction and it's a way to avert tensions and conflicts. The question is not having a preference for a multicultural society; it's more a matter of acceptance. We have to accept that our societies tend towards multiculturalism, in a greater or lesser degree. So the point is how to handle with that in order to reach a dynamic balance, not building a barbed wire fence in a desperate attempt to preserve the old status-quo (or, even worse, trying to go back to a mythic past).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not familiar with Dutch numbers. I guess post WWII immigrant background is including people of European ascent. Am I wrong? Anyway demographic balance at the end of this century would depend on many factors.

The question is how we are going to react when a conflict like the Syrian war erupts. Millions of people fled the country: some of them sought refuge in neighbouring countries and others reached Turkey, Greece and other European nations. Basic humanitarian considerations led Angela Merkel to make the decision to accept a number of them. Notice that all these people escaping war are refugees and not "refugees". It was a brave decision, moreover when she had to be aware that accepting refugees from the Middle East was going to raise internal opposition. I wish she had the same degree of bravery in dealing with other crises in Europe. Anyway she's still dealing with the unpopularity of her decision among a sector of German population. However, it was the right thing to do. Kudos to her.

 I have nothing against maintaining our cultures. However, as I tried to point above, societies are dynamic and demographic changes imply a degree of transformation. I want to remark the notion of transformation, because its meaning differs from destruction. Apparently that's your main fear: the destruction of European culture. I don't think that is going to happen, but transformations are inevitable. No society in the course of history has remained static. However, I fear that misguided policies fuelled by fear and hate will trigger conflict in the near future. I already stated my concern about the health of our democracies before the rise of xenophobic populism.

The rise of leaders like Donald Trump, Viktor Orban or Matteo Salvini seems to indicate that we are   entering a new era in which national identity is more important than democracy and human rights. I think this drift must be combated.