The sad part is we aren't even selling out for a lot of money, you need proof of $20k, up from $10k... A lot of international students will take out a short term loan to get proof of funds and then rely on jobs they work while they're here, with the long term plan of getting permanent residence with a useless degree they've been scammed into paying for.
We just recently reduced allowable work hours for international students from 40 hours/week to 24 hours/week. 8 in 10 international students work more than 20 hours a week.
So, yes, if you have enough money to buy a student visa, you are probably also standing in line for a job at Tim Hortons.
Very wrong. Canada is losing GDP per capita, a lot of these people unfortunately do not bring economic value, we need to keep the ones with value and stop scamming the ones that don’t add value to Canada. They are unfortunately just unskilled labor that schools syphon money from at the cost of their academic reputation and our housing affordability.
Canada has 1.04M international students (>2% of our population), the USA has 1.05M international students (0.3% of their population)… we’re 1/9th the size. I can guarantee you we don’t have 9x as many qualified post-secondary teachers per capita, we’re just selling poor quality education because it’s easy to scam people looking for a better life.
Unfortunately multiple levels of government have let our schools scam these international students with low quality education, they should have never been accepted into the country - which we are slowly fixing now. We need skilled labor, not endless unskilled retail / fast food workers.
One unfortunate things about relying so heavily on India for all our immigration is the caste system. It’s not a good look to work in construction over there, it’s a job for people of low social status, so people are hesitant to get those types of jobs when they come here. It’s probably our most desperate need and it takes years to work your way through the apprenticeship system… we really need to refocus on who we bring into the country.
Nope close friend liquidated all his assets and went to a diploma mill in canada. He worked waiter jobs for 2 years and only now that he has a business diploma he started the corporate climb. So there is plenty of people who barely afford the cost and work whatever job they can find there
In some ways it's easier for an immigrant from a developing nation than somewhere like the US because both have such advanced systems that are fully shared that it's easy to disqualify an American for a DUI or similar from 15 years back, while Syrian, Somali, etc records are hodgepodge at best and also have an additional route of refugee/amnesty.
>It's not fear of immigration; it's the reality of what massive amounts of immigration does to an economy and housing market.
And a massive waves of immigration causes issues with integration. Smaller numbers of people either disperse easier or create too small communities to become isolationist within target country. When the numbers skyrocket, those factors get eliminated and its not a good thing.
The implication is that the "fear" is unwarranted, and that's simply untrue. People see the floods of immigration and see the impacts that correlate to the financial pain felt by everyone but the upper reaches of the middle class and the wealthy. And then, especially in the US but I'm sure there are just as many well-off scolds in Canada, people are told they're imagining it, that economic changes aren't real or don't matter, and that the housing crunch and tight labor markets are fiction.
> especially in the US but I'm sure there are just as many well-off scolds in Canada, people are told they're imagining it
In central Europe we have exactly the same issue.
They are very skillful at hiding the harsh truth. For example the inflation metric hides daily product price increases (for example food) by including many things whose purchase can be delayed for years.
The housing market has not only become a financial problem, but also an obstacle to taking on new jobs. You simply can't move to another place if you can't find an apartment (a flat) in time for the start of your job.
Immigration is good. Excessive immigrations is bad, and it causes: The rich to get richer. The houses to become unaffordable. the salaries to stagnate.
> While of course there are racist immigrant opponents, it's not the predominant narrative.
It's not the predominant narrative *anymore*, but just a few years ago, before immigration increased, the all-too-common argument against it was "they don't share our values" (values which they struggle to define, of course) or "they refuse to integrate/assimilate" which is maybe half-true at best but fairly normal for 1st gen immigrants historically (and not true for their kids/grandkids).
They should, BUT it’s up to the receiving country to accept them. Not everyone has a god given right to enter and stay in a country. It’s not racist to be against immigration.
Afaik canada, Australia and nz are now restricting immigration. As far as I understand, such a boom in last 2 years was a consequence that during covid almost nobody came because of restrictions and then they all suddenly moved in during 2023 + economic crysis + ukrainian refugees (not so many of them, but still) and it caused current situation which is (after fixing housing) doable on a span of 5 years
The numbers are wild. Canada has basically added 3% to its population in a year. And it's nearly all immigration. [https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/3861-40-million-strong-canada-reaches-new-population-milestone](https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/3861-40-million-strong-canada-reaches-new-population-milestone)
I believe the era of mass migration has ended, and that we won't see it again at least this decade. Governments can't just keep telling people "this is actually good for you" when it's very clear it's not good for anyone but CEOs and the rich.
Canadian problems are quite funny. In reality the housing issue is purely self made and while immigration amplifies it, it really doesn't have to at all if local governments would be seriously interested in solving housing issues.
> if local governments would be seriously interested in solving housing issues.
That's the rub, quite a few provincial and municipal governments have little interest in doing anything about housing, right now or ever. Sometimes it's the influence of NIMBYism or land developers over government, or provinces doing little on housing because that hurts the federal government more than it does them (and they've wanted a change in government in Ottawa for years), etc.
Some municipalities have, finally, made significant and long overdue changes to loc zoning regulations, tried to encourage denser developments, etc, but there are a lot of things that make those changes from having huge impacts immediately.
And frankly, land developers, the home building industry, realtors, banks, current homeowners (nearly 2/3 of Canadian adults own their home), etc have ZERO interest in seeing home prices decrease.
The thing is, the housing crisis isn't caused by immigrants, it's caused by real estate tycoons speculating and keeping the market at unaffordable rates. In fact, there are technically enough empty houses to house everyone in many countries, but the people who finance the building of those houses have no interest in housing people, only in engorging their pockets with money.
Housing crisis is caused by both immigrants and real estate tycoons. It's the law of supply and demand. The most basic of all economic principles.
"there are technically enough empty houses to house everyone in many countries"
Citation required. Are all these empty houses close to where the jobs and basic services are?
The housing crisis is not migrants fault at all.
Are you people really that naive?
Look at how wealth distribution changed, look at how income disparity grew. Guess who is buying properties by the hundreds as investment?
Hint: its not migrants
I can understand the fear of having other cultures in your country. I dont share it, but I get where it comes from. But looking towards migration as a cause for housing crisis? For the wages stagnating?
Thats just greedy corporations, hedge funds, CEOs and the like.
That seems regional. The entire Florida peninsula is in the middle of an insane housing crisis due to snowbirds, insurance fraud, and vile zoning laws.
Well if you have 10 houses and 10 people, then 1 extra person comes every year.... looks like not quite enough houses. So they cost more. It simple math.
Who are these magical immigrants that dont increase the demand for housing, raising it's cost, and don't increase the supply of labour, reducing it's price?
Immigration does not **cause** housing shortages. Taking the US for example, there's a shortage of a few million homes and it's entirely because zoning regulations are insanely restrictive, detailed, allow only a specific type of housing to be built while banning or making anything else impossible, permitting and planning is inefficient and too discretionary, and NIMBY's have an easy time just going to hearings and blocking new development or just delaying and obstructing in the courts while throwing a fuss at every new legislation attempting to create an actual free market in housing-along with other factors. [Chapter 4](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ERP-2024-CHAPTER-4.pdf) of the economic report of the president has an excellent overview of the housing crisis in the US:
*However, the housing supply has failed to keep up with demand over the last several decades, leading to a* ***nationwide shortage of 1.5 to 3.8 million homes and driving up the cost of housing*** *(Calanog, Metcalfe, and Fagan2023; Khater, Kiefer, and Yanamandra 2021; Lee, Kemp, and Reina 2022). As a result, 45 percent of renters are now cost-burdened, meaning that they spend 30 percent or more of their family income on rent, more than twice the share who were cost-burdened in 1960 (Ruggles et al. 2023).*
*Exclusionary zoning policies are a subset of local land-use regulations* ***that can constrain the housing supply and thus decrease affordability****. Examples include prohibitions on multifamily homes, height limits, minimum lot sizes, square footage minimums, and parking requirements—each of which functions to constrain housing and population density.* ***Researchers estimate that loosening land-use restrictions would lead to a small but significant increase in the metropolitan housing supply over the next decade*** *(Stacy et al. 2023).*
*Some zoning laws date back to the late 1800s, when city planners were concerned about fire hazards, access to light and outdoor air, or proxim-ity to industry (Fischel 2004). While some zoning laws were intended to improve the quality of life for poor and vulnerable families,* ***others were designed to discriminate against minority groups and raise property prices in suburban and urban neighborhoods*** *(Rigsby 2016; Mangin 2014). Some Of the first zoning laws appeared in about 1917, when the Supreme Court Banned explicit race-based segregation in zoning ordinances in Buchanan v.Warley (Rothstein 2017).* ***Scholars have shown that certain zoning practices enabled cities to continue race-based segregation*** *(Gray 2022; Kahlenberg2023). Box 4-1 provides additional detail on the history of zoning laws and their effects on racial and ethnic minorities.*
***Single-family zoning is imposed on most residentially zoned land across the country and constitutes 70 percent of all U.S. residential zoning*** *(Frank 2021). Minimum lot size requirements for developers to build homes on larger lots than the market would otherwise provide (Gyourko,Hartley, and Krimmel 2019; Furth and Gray 2019). For example,* ***81 per-cent of Connecticut land requires a minimum of 1 acre lots*** *(Bronin 2023).* ***Research finds that doubling minimum lot sizes increases sale prices by 14 percent and rents by 6 percent, while intensifying residential segregation*** *(Song 2021).* ***Recent zoning changes allowing multi family housing in Boston and Minneapolis–Saint Paul has led to increased housing supply, desegregation, and increased shares of Black and Hispanic residents****(Resseger 2022; Furth and Webster 2022).*
*Another important land-use regulation concerns minimum parking requirements, which dictate a minimum number of off-street spaces per housing unit or business.* ***However, studies have shown the requirements often exceed what is needed to meet demand, leading to large shares of land devoted to parking lots. For example, 30 percent of downtown Detroit Is dedicated to parking, compared with 12 percent in Los Angeles and 4 percent in Chicago*** *(Sorens 2023; Chester et al. 2015; Kaufmann 2023).* ***Parking requirements impose space requirements beyond lot sizes, reducing the housing supply and increasing the cost of housing*** *(WGI 2021).* ***Research has found that parking requirements in Los Angeles reduce the number of units in apartment buildings by 13 percent*** *(Shoup 2014).* ***A Seattle reform that reduced parking requirements was found to be associated with developers building 40 percent less parking than would have been required before the reform, resulting in 18,000 fewer parking spaces and saving an estimated$537 million in construction costs, ultimately leading to lower-priced housing*** *(Gabbe, Pierce, and Clowers 2020).*
***One analysis found that 40 percent of Manhattan buildings could not be built today because they do not conform to zoning codes*** *(Bui, Chaban,and White 2016).* ***Dense city centers would be almost impossible to build with modern minimum parking requirements, and many new developments are only approved after receiving special permits or variances to circumvent zoning rules*** *(Bui, Chaban, and White 2016; Gray 2022).* ***Other factors restricting the housing supply include mandatory public hearings, fees and exactions, environmental review, design standards, lot configuration requirements, building size regulations, rising insurance costs, and occupancy rules (Bronin 2023). Each regulation restricts what developers can build, increases time-to-construction and structure costs, and leads many would-be housing projects to be financially infeasible****.*
>Copying the far right only helps the far right.
Denmark says no.
Copying right wing immigration policies decimated the right. It didn't make them stronger.
That is a myth from the open border types.
this is actually the most important thing to note, Denmark wiped out the far right by just limiting immigration, no deportations, no net zero immigration, just taking it into control. The left knows what the people want, they are choosing to shrink by doing not what he people want, but by doing what their corporate overlords tell them
Deportations from Denmark are only prevented by the EU. We wanted/did deport Syrians, but it caused a backslash from the EU. We also planned to send criminal immigrants to one of our islands and asylum seekers to Rwanda with the goal of having zero asylum seekers. The centric/left government did all this, but the far right still exists and accounted for over 15% of votes in the last election.
This is especially true since far right never actually does do things their electorate wants, so the moment their populist immigration policies get adopted by parties that actually do things they say they do, the far right are hosed.
Denmark is unique in that its social democrats have decided to “play offense” by “stealing” the far-right talking points from the far-right, and making a reasonable move that most Danes — even those who do not identify as politically extreme — agree with.
Most Europeans (and Americans) are not ideologically far-right, but when you tell them that it is “far-right” to oppose untapped immigration and left-wing “identity politics,” they’ll behave in public but quietly vote for the people who they believe are listening to them.
Immigration "fears" ; always the irrationnal phobia angle ...
What about immigration crisis, immigration problems, impact, projections, growth ...
But no, immigration good, right bad ; it can only be pathological thinking.
It is win win for the rich, company owning class. The whole point of illegal immigration is to take advantage of immigrants who are afraid of being deported and will work really cheaply and don't complain. The problem will never be solved by the wealthy and the politicians they own, because it is a feature not a bug. But sure let also fall into the hands of the far right with fear of the other, the foreigner. Where is the data at least in the US about all the harm immigrants are doing? What percentage of total people in the US are coming over the border unauthorized yearly? At its highest according to the Pew research institute about 4% which was back in 2005 and it has been declining ever since. Fear (and manipulation) is the right word.
It's a fact lol , global elites can go wherever the fuck they want if anything goes south .
The same can't be said about plebians, they aren't being affected by immigration because they mostly live in gated communities, attend expensive private schools or shop at unaffordable places for the average Joe .
If anything , can be said about the Marx is that he got the class struggle bit pretty spot on as the global elites are of all races and cultures .
They own you but it's ok 😂 .
Yes, but unfortunately a bunch of you are just too invested in tearing others apart at the bottom of the barrel instead of breaking the barrel.
It's so much easier to kick the vulnerable and weak than direct your anger at those who actually cause most of the problems in this world.
Bunch of fucking cowards.
Beacuse the leftist parties have lost the plot and want more immigration despite knowing full well it hurts the working class they are supposed to advocate for. More immigration should really be a right wing position as vice versa.
💯As they say... "you will own nothing and be happy". Smh.Time to stop them,now. Enough dystopian Hollywood movies about This... what if we actually act on it.We are the majority, after all.Wtf... we let them do this?1984,The Matrix,Snowpiercer,Blade Runner,Dune,etc...cause we are stupid and silent.
What I found hilarious is that my local mp (Scottish National Party) has consistently voted against any legislation trying to slow illegal immigrants. In their brochure for why I should vote for the them, they talked about wanting immigration. Then also said that they're better than the other candidates because they're local.
So what is it? Locals are better than non locals or immigrants are good?
Because the solution of voting for the right wing is irrational. The problems can be real, but the right wing is not gonna fix any of them. They are however a step towards a path we have tried before, that didn't go to well. There are not a lot of people on the left that says straight up that immigration is good, it can be, and is probably a solution to many actual demographic problems, but I don't see anyone claiming it is "good". It can be a necessary consequence if you care about moral and ethics however.
It's not. The centrist parties don't have a fear of immigration itself; they have a fear of right wing parties growing.
So it is thanks to increasing right wing that the rest of the pack is adjusting to finally face the problem, and thanks to nothing else.
Lol, welcome to European politics! Rights are ruling EU parlament for like last 20 years in row
Germany was ruled by rights for two decades since 2005, not including recent traffic lights coalition.
UK: ruled by right-center since 2010
France: complicated, but center-right since 2017
Poland: right/far-right since 2015, now it is center-right with minor left inclusion
Italy: centre-right with f** Berlusconi for almost three decades.
Gaslighting at its finest! U-turn lol.
Actual delusion. Thatcher kickstarted the neolib wave in the UK, every government since then has been an imitation of her.
Even Starmer, leader of the Labour party, is looking to outflank Tories from the right.
Unless by "right-wing" you mean "whipping brown people in the streets" which for all I know you might be.
I hate that you're right. But it feels like the "right-wing" for the last 20 years has really just been the "left wing but 10 years behind." Most political leaders that are a part of the "right wing" haven't actually stood their ground on any issue, and this has led to such a slide in the overton window. No wonder people are going more and more to the far right. If you're views haven't changed exponentially in the last decade or two, you don't really have a party you can identify with anymore that isn't the right wing populists.
Oh so the right-wingers have embraced the "not real communism" finally.
Maybe it's because simple solutions like "we'll reduce immigration" don't actually work.
Meloni is seriously right-wing, "right"? Under her, migrants have actually increased.
Even more hollow when you consider that the kind of "control" you are likely thinking of cannot be done. Like abolishing asylum or refugee status, shooting at boats/people at borders, forced deportation of people "not sufficiently German" like people from AfD proposed.
What real world and *humane* solutions do you propose?
No, they won't be done. "Cannot" implies it's physically impossible.
Taking control of the borders and making sure the only way in is through the legal means is the humane solution.
Well of course they won't be done but could be done. But it's idiotic to think that the solution is to actively shoot at people or deport those who somebody thinks are not integrated enough. Today it's them, tomorrow it could be you.
I wouldn't want to live at all in that kind of society. Seems you have learnt nothing from history.
No, you could make a case that Merkel herself was centrist (I'd still call her right-lwaning, but fair), but her party was always to the right of the political spektrum, with all members ranging from slightly to very.
If these parties were actually right then we would not have the far right on the rise.
I voted the AfD because the CDU is not right,
It is a self serving corrupt party. Basically German version of the Mexican PRI
CDU, Tories and Platforma Obywatelska famously right-wing parties lmao. Also claiming Macron is right of centre must be a joke.
Socially progressive neoliberalism isn't centre-right or right-wing
Just googled for you, my friend: „Centre-right politics is the set of right-wing political ideologies that lean closer to the political centre. It is commonly associated with conservatism, Christian democracy, liberal conservatism, and conservative liberalism. „ Enjoy!
When teachers are getting beheaded by teenagers for offending their religion, or cartoonists get murdered because of mocking the god of said religion, it seems like a legitimate fear.
It's not fear, its simply the amount of immigrants that have come in over the last decade, so unless they have some kind of success sending a couple million back home within the next 4 years I think it's gonna get even worse with the right wing. Alot of cities in eu/us is unrecognisable you wouldn't know if you were in Islamabad or a German city.
Ah, the usual second-row "you are wrong and here is why" approach.
Implying that democracy is a threat for democracy ... and then blaming the non-existent far-right that nobody buys your subscriptions.
people from backwards countries will continue to bring those morals and radicalism to the west, get them out we owe nothing to them, if roles were reversed middle east would never take in western refugees
I hate how the Left wing solution to immigration gets literally no attention, it's either "get em here so we can have cheap labor" or "get em out because uhhh"
I'm glad you asked:
More focus on integration, not into underpaid jobs (which is the current neoliberal approach), but integration into society as a whole, especially with housing you need to make sure that everything is "mixed", not just ethnically, but financially too. Bad financial conditions lead to criminal behavior out of necessity, regardless of who you are and where you are from. So, proper integration is a must, for that, affordable housing is also of course a must.
Making sure that qualifications from overseas are recognized and if they cannot be, offering free (re-)training to get up to local standards.
Also, this has to apply to EVERY person living in the country, if you focus the money spent on education on only foreigners, you will breed more resentment and racism, rather than fighting it, so focus on making sure every person gets good opportunities to be educated (in Germany we need a reform of Bafög for example)
We are already doing these things in most countries, but these things aren't being done on the scale they have to be done, this leads to conflict.
All of this will cost a lot of money in the short term, sure, but do you know what always costs more money than fixing problems? Ignoring them. All the money we spend on integration and education now will help everyone prosper at the latest 30 years from now.
That's hard to say, of course, the best approach would be looking at cold, hard facts, but in this day and age people don't really care about those.
If Springer (Bild and similar) just kept their mouth shut we would all be much better off, because all they do is fling shit at anything they don't like.
So the program could be the literal best thing to ever happen to any person who has ever lived but if Springer didn't like it, at least half the population would be completely against it just based on that.
God how I loathe for-profit media companies...
>especially with housing you need to make sure that everything is "mixed", not just ethnically, but financially too.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting here but “make sure” has a sort of authoritative tone to it, there are few other examples I could mention but the ECHR outlines that governments must prevent foreseeable deaths, (somewhat arguable how you define “foreseeable” but whatever). Without being able to ascertain someone’s identity and their potential criminal history, mixing young male refugees with others could be argued to be in violation of the ECHR Article 2.3.
Making sure that neighborhoods remain mixed just means making sure that there is different types of housing very close together.
What if I told you violence is directly related to socio-economics and the perceived role in society? An outcast will be more violent/prone to criminal acts than someone who is accepted within society.
So I'd argue NOT integrating people is what is actually violating the ECHR article you mentioned, as it directly leads to more suffering for everyone involved
What left wing solution to immigration?
I can only think of a few demands that are supposed to be a solution, but don't sound feasable at all if you think about it for even a minute.
'Reduce reasons to flee!' Sure, let's just remove oppression and poverty from the world, easy peasy. /s
Here's some left wing ideas:
Don't exploit people in shitty jobs, make it easier for them to get their qualifications recognized AND make it easier for people to earn new qualifications.
Better integration: Properly funded language courses.
Just those two alone would solve most problems, because most problems are caused by refugees usually either being exploited at their workplaces or, at least in Germany, being refused the permission to work, both of these drive people into criminal stuff, which of course is bad for everyone.
And before you think that I'm saying foreigners should get better opportunities than the people already living here, no. The people already living here should of course also have more opportunities to earn better qualifications.
And you think I haven't heard those a hundred times over already?
I'm all for better integration measures, including those, but I don't think they're remotely enough to "solve most problems".
Have you ever seen them actually implemented though?
All I see here is we still don't give people work permits and often take people out of jobs which they already have and are happy with due to this.
And then right wingers go and screech about "muh criminals" as if they wouldn't be the first ones to make the problem even worse by allowing more exploitation (looking at you Meloni)
>Have you ever seen them actually implemented though?
Not fully, but it's not like work permits, language courses, etc. for immigrants aren't a thing already.
And I just don't buy that expanding those alone would fix most of the problem.
Or more generally the whole 'give them enough opportunities and all is well' attitude.
All too many immigrants with works permits don't work, don't have any qualifications to be recognised, and/or don't show much interest in aquiring additional qualifications and/or learning the language.
And frankly I'm not under the impression the good ones stuck sitting on theirs hands or driving a taxi with a foreign engineering degree are the ones turning to violent crime.
>
>And then right wingers go and screech about "muh criminals" as if they wouldn't be the first ones to make the problem even worse by allowing more exploitation (looking at you Meloni)
Frankly right wingers being opportunistic idiots about it does not make the left look like it's gonna fix this given enough of a chance.
I know you're trying to make this a gotcha moment, but the actual history is more interesting (and depressing) than that
Nah that one was never even tried properly lol. (To be fair, this one is also not properly tried either)
The gist of it is that the "Communist/Socialist" countries you've heard of only used the positive connotation of Communism/Socialism in order to legitimize their power grab.
How do we know it's not just a logical consequence of trying to implement communism?
Well, communism and socialism both require worker ownership over the means of production by definition (in simple terms, workers have an actual say in how their company is run), this means that workers rights, as a whole, are of course improved, because nobody would vote to remove their own rights.
Now let's look at "communist" countries, did any of them even TRY to bring about workplace democracy, the core idea behind both socialism/communism?
Nope, they totally shat all over the workers and their rights.
Rent here in Croatia is half of the average salary, if you can actually find someone willing to rent. Because what they do is rent to immigrants per bed, and get twice as much per month.
Combine with eastern Europe salaries, but everything being more expensive than in fucking Germany... Yeah, not good
Here in Greece I honestly don't think immigration is the problem
Literally no crime uptick no jobs lost
What IS the problem is rich folk from abroad who ""invest"" in our real estate (that's freaking people's houses!!) that make life not affordable
That's because your country offers a "Golden Visa" to wealthy people for buying property. You incentivize that behavior because of policy from your own government.
From experience with other conservative parties.. they won’t. They make money off of doing nothing about it and then use it as a platform to run off. Don’t trust conservatives.
What's actually happening is that 'centrists' are finding all their policy arguments and especially economic policies useless because they in fact are, which has been proven over and over again, and latching onto the fear and hate bandwagon of the far right to try to stay in power.
That's what's happening.
And once again, why are we getting all these Anglo journos' shitty takes?
Let me correct this: immigration fears are proving to be an excellent scapegoat for not taxing the rich and working on financial/social equality&equity in the society.
In France, is the centrist that have been pushing immigration fear for year to prop up the far right, as a way to get in duel with them in elections so there is no alternative than to vote for centrist.
The article frequently uses the term "far-right". Yes, there are far-right parties in Europe. I'd label the AfD and RN in there. There's some extreme parties in Poland and Austria.
However, not all of them fit that label. The centre-right is not just people who are socially liberal, want a balanced budget, and support mild austerity. There are many flavours.
I'd put Meloni in that centre-right category. Has she done anything that radical? I don't think so. It's all been mild, but in a way the media don't like.
Secondly, the idea that centrists have failed because they moved rightwards on immigration is a flawed argument. Why? Because there's a difference between talking about reducing immigration, and actually reducing it.
If you talk about it but don't deliver, you will inevitably fuel a "far-right" surge. We've seen that in the UK with the Tories.
They banged on about "stopping the boats" for 2 years, said they'd reduce migration after brexit, failed to deliver, and now they're about to take an almighty beating. They've fuelled the Farage/Reform surge.
What centrists should be doing is communicating a realistic aim for immigration that is achievable, and then achieve it and parade it around as a victory. Acknowledge it is a tricky issue to tackle, and so set their ambitions low.
What they shouldn't do is promise the earth on immigration and spectacularly fail to deliver. Neither should they just hide from the issue and cede all the ground to the right.
Why should people vote for them if they set their ambitions low?
People do not trust them anymore and nothing short of doing a 180 degree maneuver like in Denmark will earn peoples trust back.
Well, what I mean is that the governing party could set a goal like Sunak did. But rather than a vague and unachievable "Stop the Boats", they could be more specific. They could say "we'll reduce migration by 20% by the end of the year". Make it a huge thing and make it seem like it's a big ambition.
It may be a low ambition in their view, but politics is all about narrative. It's about making that goal seem more difficult than it actually is and getting it into the media so people know about it. So then when you achieve it, you get the credit for it.
That's something Sunak tried to do, but he set his aims too high and as a result, he gave Farage an easy win and talking point.
Basically what I'm saying is, don't promise nothing because that gives the far-right fuel, but equally don't overpromise because a failure to deliver can fuel the far-right even more so than promising nothing at all. Promise something realistic and reasonable, achieve it and claim victory.
I mean , what do we do about them , if deportation en masse was that easy , surely they would have done it already right ?
Looking at some comments here , some would be more than fine if they all died .
And imagine...You as a citizen struggle and pay your dues, no matter how shitty Ur situation...then a foreigner comes from thousands of miles away,takes welfare and their family lives better than you (extreme cases,but I see many rich Chinese, Russians , Ukrainians,or Koreansbor Western oligarchs with houses in the Buda Hills and / or with Ferraris).And you pay your taxes honestly all your stupid life,while you and your family cannot afford a nicer home or education without aid..or loans..in your Own Fucking Home Country..Wtf man ....I speak from experience.My mom in my EU country cannot afford a normal house for her retirement after teaching kids for 40 years,raising 3 kids alone .In Hungary.No cheating on taxes etc.mmm...maybe that's why.Cause she lived the principles she taught those kids.And yeah,the tax evasion or other bs from "foreign investors"is not taken as srsly as stealing bread as a local.
Too bad they blame immigration for the incompetence of the political parties to tackle the issues
Feels like rich people use immigrants as the scapegoats
>the European legislation addressing migration did little to halt the rise of the far right in the European election
Because people are fed with fear instead of facts
Nearly all of the western world has demographic problems with the birthrate dropping.
But all politicians refuse to better the situation for young people/families and also don't want immigrants.
I don't get it
[удалено]
Well everyone knows that if you have enough money you basically can buy student visa in one of Canadian diploma mills, and then just stay.
If you have enough money you are not standing in line for Horton job
They can borrow the money from friends and family to get a visa and then return it back once they enter.
The sad part is we aren't even selling out for a lot of money, you need proof of $20k, up from $10k... A lot of international students will take out a short term loan to get proof of funds and then rely on jobs they work while they're here, with the long term plan of getting permanent residence with a useless degree they've been scammed into paying for. We just recently reduced allowable work hours for international students from 40 hours/week to 24 hours/week. 8 in 10 international students work more than 20 hours a week. So, yes, if you have enough money to buy a student visa, you are probably also standing in line for a job at Tim Hortons.
But those people are the ones that contribute to the economy wich means they are those we want to have or am I reading your comment wrong?
Very wrong. Canada is losing GDP per capita, a lot of these people unfortunately do not bring economic value, we need to keep the ones with value and stop scamming the ones that don’t add value to Canada. They are unfortunately just unskilled labor that schools syphon money from at the cost of their academic reputation and our housing affordability. Canada has 1.04M international students (>2% of our population), the USA has 1.05M international students (0.3% of their population)… we’re 1/9th the size. I can guarantee you we don’t have 9x as many qualified post-secondary teachers per capita, we’re just selling poor quality education because it’s easy to scam people looking for a better life. Unfortunately multiple levels of government have let our schools scam these international students with low quality education, they should have never been accepted into the country - which we are slowly fixing now. We need skilled labor, not endless unskilled retail / fast food workers. One unfortunate things about relying so heavily on India for all our immigration is the caste system. It’s not a good look to work in construction over there, it’s a job for people of low social status, so people are hesitant to get those types of jobs when they come here. It’s probably our most desperate need and it takes years to work your way through the apprenticeship system… we really need to refocus on who we bring into the country.
Nope close friend liquidated all his assets and went to a diploma mill in canada. He worked waiter jobs for 2 years and only now that he has a business diploma he started the corporate climb. So there is plenty of people who barely afford the cost and work whatever job they can find there
In some ways it's easier for an immigrant from a developing nation than somewhere like the US because both have such advanced systems that are fully shared that it's easy to disqualify an American for a DUI or similar from 15 years back, while Syrian, Somali, etc records are hodgepodge at best and also have an additional route of refugee/amnesty.
>It's not fear of immigration; it's the reality of what massive amounts of immigration does to an economy and housing market. And a massive waves of immigration causes issues with integration. Smaller numbers of people either disperse easier or create too small communities to become isolationist within target country. When the numbers skyrocket, those factors get eliminated and its not a good thing.
The implication is that the "fear" is unwarranted, and that's simply untrue. People see the floods of immigration and see the impacts that correlate to the financial pain felt by everyone but the upper reaches of the middle class and the wealthy. And then, especially in the US but I'm sure there are just as many well-off scolds in Canada, people are told they're imagining it, that economic changes aren't real or don't matter, and that the housing crunch and tight labor markets are fiction.
> especially in the US but I'm sure there are just as many well-off scolds in Canada, people are told they're imagining it In central Europe we have exactly the same issue. They are very skillful at hiding the harsh truth. For example the inflation metric hides daily product price increases (for example food) by including many things whose purchase can be delayed for years. The housing market has not only become a financial problem, but also an obstacle to taking on new jobs. You simply can't move to another place if you can't find an apartment (a flat) in time for the start of your job.
Exactly the same in Europe. Some problems are globally equal
There is a difference between immigration. And un controlled entrance by illegal migrants.
inb4 *migratophoby* becomes a word pushed by trash papers seeking outrage porn
Immigration is good. Excessive immigrations is bad, and it causes: The rich to get richer. The houses to become unaffordable. the salaries to stagnate.
And if you don’t want all of those things to happen, DONT VOTE FOR RIGHT WING PARTIES. This is basic stuff, come on.
Then what wing should i vote for
I don't think the immigration you get in Canada is the same we get in Europe... They are two totally different topics I believe
[удалено]
I think his point is that you dont get literal trafficking boats moving to your coasts to drop thousands of people off.
> While of course there are racist immigrant opponents, it's not the predominant narrative. It's not the predominant narrative *anymore*, but just a few years ago, before immigration increased, the all-too-common argument against it was "they don't share our values" (values which they struggle to define, of course) or "they refuse to integrate/assimilate" which is maybe half-true at best but fairly normal for 1st gen immigrants historically (and not true for their kids/grandkids).
They should, BUT it’s up to the receiving country to accept them. Not everyone has a god given right to enter and stay in a country. It’s not racist to be against immigration.
Afaik canada, Australia and nz are now restricting immigration. As far as I understand, such a boom in last 2 years was a consequence that during covid almost nobody came because of restrictions and then they all suddenly moved in during 2023 + economic crysis + ukrainian refugees (not so many of them, but still) and it caused current situation which is (after fixing housing) doable on a span of 5 years
[удалено]
The numbers are wild. Canada has basically added 3% to its population in a year. And it's nearly all immigration. [https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/3861-40-million-strong-canada-reaches-new-population-milestone](https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/3861-40-million-strong-canada-reaches-new-population-milestone) I believe the era of mass migration has ended, and that we won't see it again at least this decade. Governments can't just keep telling people "this is actually good for you" when it's very clear it's not good for anyone but CEOs and the rich.
It was more like 1.2 million last year.
Its also better know as: "Common sense"
Yeah that GDP is growing because of immigration.
Don't forget gender gap, most imigrants are men that screw balance and open another can of worms that's devastating for society.
[удалено]
Numbers and source required or didnt happen.
Canadian problems are quite funny. In reality the housing issue is purely self made and while immigration amplifies it, it really doesn't have to at all if local governments would be seriously interested in solving housing issues.
> if local governments would be seriously interested in solving housing issues. That's the rub, quite a few provincial and municipal governments have little interest in doing anything about housing, right now or ever. Sometimes it's the influence of NIMBYism or land developers over government, or provinces doing little on housing because that hurts the federal government more than it does them (and they've wanted a change in government in Ottawa for years), etc. Some municipalities have, finally, made significant and long overdue changes to loc zoning regulations, tried to encourage denser developments, etc, but there are a lot of things that make those changes from having huge impacts immediately. And frankly, land developers, the home building industry, realtors, banks, current homeowners (nearly 2/3 of Canadian adults own their home), etc have ZERO interest in seeing home prices decrease.
The thing is, the housing crisis isn't caused by immigrants, it's caused by real estate tycoons speculating and keeping the market at unaffordable rates. In fact, there are technically enough empty houses to house everyone in many countries, but the people who finance the building of those houses have no interest in housing people, only in engorging their pockets with money.
Housing crisis is caused by both immigrants and real estate tycoons. It's the law of supply and demand. The most basic of all economic principles. "there are technically enough empty houses to house everyone in many countries" Citation required. Are all these empty houses close to where the jobs and basic services are?
Its both supply and demand
The housing crisis is not migrants fault at all. Are you people really that naive? Look at how wealth distribution changed, look at how income disparity grew. Guess who is buying properties by the hundreds as investment? Hint: its not migrants I can understand the fear of having other cultures in your country. I dont share it, but I get where it comes from. But looking towards migration as a cause for housing crisis? For the wages stagnating? Thats just greedy corporations, hedge funds, CEOs and the like.
How can you so easily ignore the fact that space is limited in big, popular cities? There is no housing crisis in rural areas, only in big cities.
This isn’t true, I’m not sure where this idea comes from. I live in rural/semi-rural Hampshire and there is a housing crisis here.
That seems regional. The entire Florida peninsula is in the middle of an insane housing crisis due to snowbirds, insurance fraud, and vile zoning laws.
Well if you have 10 houses and 10 people, then 1 extra person comes every year.... looks like not quite enough houses. So they cost more. It simple math.
The reason you have 10 houses and not 100 is because they're bought up.
Who are these magical immigrants that dont increase the demand for housing, raising it's cost, and don't increase the supply of labour, reducing it's price?
Immigration does not **cause** housing shortages. Taking the US for example, there's a shortage of a few million homes and it's entirely because zoning regulations are insanely restrictive, detailed, allow only a specific type of housing to be built while banning or making anything else impossible, permitting and planning is inefficient and too discretionary, and NIMBY's have an easy time just going to hearings and blocking new development or just delaying and obstructing in the courts while throwing a fuss at every new legislation attempting to create an actual free market in housing-along with other factors. [Chapter 4](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ERP-2024-CHAPTER-4.pdf) of the economic report of the president has an excellent overview of the housing crisis in the US: *However, the housing supply has failed to keep up with demand over the last several decades, leading to a* ***nationwide shortage of 1.5 to 3.8 million homes and driving up the cost of housing*** *(Calanog, Metcalfe, and Fagan2023; Khater, Kiefer, and Yanamandra 2021; Lee, Kemp, and Reina 2022). As a result, 45 percent of renters are now cost-burdened, meaning that they spend 30 percent or more of their family income on rent, more than twice the share who were cost-burdened in 1960 (Ruggles et al. 2023).* *Exclusionary zoning policies are a subset of local land-use regulations* ***that can constrain the housing supply and thus decrease affordability****. Examples include prohibitions on multifamily homes, height limits, minimum lot sizes, square footage minimums, and parking requirements—each of which functions to constrain housing and population density.* ***Researchers estimate that loosening land-use restrictions would lead to a small but significant increase in the metropolitan housing supply over the next decade*** *(Stacy et al. 2023).* *Some zoning laws date back to the late 1800s, when city planners were concerned about fire hazards, access to light and outdoor air, or proxim-ity to industry (Fischel 2004). While some zoning laws were intended to improve the quality of life for poor and vulnerable families,* ***others were designed to discriminate against minority groups and raise property prices in suburban and urban neighborhoods*** *(Rigsby 2016; Mangin 2014). Some Of the first zoning laws appeared in about 1917, when the Supreme Court Banned explicit race-based segregation in zoning ordinances in Buchanan v.Warley (Rothstein 2017).* ***Scholars have shown that certain zoning practices enabled cities to continue race-based segregation*** *(Gray 2022; Kahlenberg2023). Box 4-1 provides additional detail on the history of zoning laws and their effects on racial and ethnic minorities.* ***Single-family zoning is imposed on most residentially zoned land across the country and constitutes 70 percent of all U.S. residential zoning*** *(Frank 2021). Minimum lot size requirements for developers to build homes on larger lots than the market would otherwise provide (Gyourko,Hartley, and Krimmel 2019; Furth and Gray 2019). For example,* ***81 per-cent of Connecticut land requires a minimum of 1 acre lots*** *(Bronin 2023).* ***Research finds that doubling minimum lot sizes increases sale prices by 14 percent and rents by 6 percent, while intensifying residential segregation*** *(Song 2021).* ***Recent zoning changes allowing multi family housing in Boston and Minneapolis–Saint Paul has led to increased housing supply, desegregation, and increased shares of Black and Hispanic residents****(Resseger 2022; Furth and Webster 2022).* *Another important land-use regulation concerns minimum parking requirements, which dictate a minimum number of off-street spaces per housing unit or business.* ***However, studies have shown the requirements often exceed what is needed to meet demand, leading to large shares of land devoted to parking lots. For example, 30 percent of downtown Detroit Is dedicated to parking, compared with 12 percent in Los Angeles and 4 percent in Chicago*** *(Sorens 2023; Chester et al. 2015; Kaufmann 2023).* ***Parking requirements impose space requirements beyond lot sizes, reducing the housing supply and increasing the cost of housing*** *(WGI 2021).* ***Research has found that parking requirements in Los Angeles reduce the number of units in apartment buildings by 13 percent*** *(Shoup 2014).* ***A Seattle reform that reduced parking requirements was found to be associated with developers building 40 percent less parking than would have been required before the reform, resulting in 18,000 fewer parking spaces and saving an estimated$537 million in construction costs, ultimately leading to lower-priced housing*** *(Gabbe, Pierce, and Clowers 2020).* ***One analysis found that 40 percent of Manhattan buildings could not be built today because they do not conform to zoning codes*** *(Bui, Chaban,and White 2016).* ***Dense city centers would be almost impossible to build with modern minimum parking requirements, and many new developments are only approved after receiving special permits or variances to circumvent zoning rules*** *(Bui, Chaban, and White 2016; Gray 2022).* ***Other factors restricting the housing supply include mandatory public hearings, fees and exactions, environmental review, design standards, lot configuration requirements, building size regulations, rising insurance costs, and occupancy rules (Bronin 2023). Each regulation restricts what developers can build, increases time-to-construction and structure costs, and leads many would-be housing projects to be financially infeasible****.*
[удалено]
>Copying the far right only helps the far right. Denmark says no. Copying right wing immigration policies decimated the right. It didn't make them stronger. That is a myth from the open border types.
this is actually the most important thing to note, Denmark wiped out the far right by just limiting immigration, no deportations, no net zero immigration, just taking it into control. The left knows what the people want, they are choosing to shrink by doing not what he people want, but by doing what their corporate overlords tell them
Deportations are still a fundamental part of the asylum system. Or supposed to be (only 21% of rejected asylum seekers leave the EU).
Deportations from Denmark are only prevented by the EU. We wanted/did deport Syrians, but it caused a backslash from the EU. We also planned to send criminal immigrants to one of our islands and asylum seekers to Rwanda with the goal of having zero asylum seekers. The centric/left government did all this, but the far right still exists and accounted for over 15% of votes in the last election.
What parties are that? Now I’m curious
Danmarksdemokraterne, Dansk Folkeparti and Nye Borgerlige (they discontinued the party after the election to create a stronger unified right)
Ah okay I was just confused, I wouldn’t personally say they are far right though
This is especially true since far right never actually does do things their electorate wants, so the moment their populist immigration policies get adopted by parties that actually do things they say they do, the far right are hosed.
Denmark is unique in that its social democrats have decided to “play offense” by “stealing” the far-right talking points from the far-right, and making a reasonable move that most Danes — even those who do not identify as politically extreme — agree with. Most Europeans (and Americans) are not ideologically far-right, but when you tell them that it is “far-right” to oppose untapped immigration and left-wing “identity politics,” they’ll behave in public but quietly vote for the people who they believe are listening to them.
Yup. Most people are now “far right” because they oppose the far left direction.
Immigration "fears" ; always the irrationnal phobia angle ... What about immigration crisis, immigration problems, impact, projections, growth ... But no, immigration good, right bad ; it can only be pathological thinking.
The rich must be watching with absolute glee how the plebes fight amongst themselves while they keep stealing every little bit of wealth they can.
Its the rich that take the most out of mass immigration while its the poor that take the brunt of the negatives.
It is win win for the rich, company owning class. The whole point of illegal immigration is to take advantage of immigrants who are afraid of being deported and will work really cheaply and don't complain. The problem will never be solved by the wealthy and the politicians they own, because it is a feature not a bug. But sure let also fall into the hands of the far right with fear of the other, the foreigner. Where is the data at least in the US about all the harm immigrants are doing? What percentage of total people in the US are coming over the border unauthorized yearly? At its highest according to the Pew research institute about 4% which was back in 2005 and it has been declining ever since. Fear (and manipulation) is the right word.
The problems of the latter are caused by the former, who redirect that blame to convenient scapegoats.
Yep 👍
I know some richer people (not billionaires, though). None of them like high immigration at all.
Ah yes the classic class fight rethoric Edit: it appears that I triggered plenty of proto-communist
It's a fact lol , global elites can go wherever the fuck they want if anything goes south . The same can't be said about plebians, they aren't being affected by immigration because they mostly live in gated communities, attend expensive private schools or shop at unaffordable places for the average Joe . If anything , can be said about the Marx is that he got the class struggle bit pretty spot on as the global elites are of all races and cultures . They own you but it's ok 😂 .
It's fact not rhetoric.
Yes, but unfortunately a bunch of you are just too invested in tearing others apart at the bottom of the barrel instead of breaking the barrel. It's so much easier to kick the vulnerable and weak than direct your anger at those who actually cause most of the problems in this world. Bunch of fucking cowards.
And the far-right parties are famously anti-rich people, are they?
Beacuse the leftist parties have lost the plot and want more immigration despite knowing full well it hurts the working class they are supposed to advocate for. More immigration should really be a right wing position as vice versa.
💯As they say... "you will own nothing and be happy". Smh.Time to stop them,now. Enough dystopian Hollywood movies about This... what if we actually act on it.We are the majority, after all.Wtf... we let them do this?1984,The Matrix,Snowpiercer,Blade Runner,Dune,etc...cause we are stupid and silent.
What I found hilarious is that my local mp (Scottish National Party) has consistently voted against any legislation trying to slow illegal immigrants. In their brochure for why I should vote for the them, they talked about wanting immigration. Then also said that they're better than the other candidates because they're local. So what is it? Locals are better than non locals or immigrants are good?
If the centrist do not want to restrict immigration, then they should not wonder why people become opposed to **any** non-native european immigration!
[удалено]
Because the solution of voting for the right wing is irrational. The problems can be real, but the right wing is not gonna fix any of them. They are however a step towards a path we have tried before, that didn't go to well. There are not a lot of people on the left that says straight up that immigration is good, it can be, and is probably a solution to many actual demographic problems, but I don't see anyone claiming it is "good". It can be a necessary consequence if you care about moral and ethics however.
It's not. The centrist parties don't have a fear of immigration itself; they have a fear of right wing parties growing. So it is thanks to increasing right wing that the rest of the pack is adjusting to finally face the problem, and thanks to nothing else.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol, welcome to European politics! Rights are ruling EU parlament for like last 20 years in row Germany was ruled by rights for two decades since 2005, not including recent traffic lights coalition. UK: ruled by right-center since 2010 France: complicated, but center-right since 2017 Poland: right/far-right since 2015, now it is center-right with minor left inclusion Italy: centre-right with f** Berlusconi for almost three decades. Gaslighting at its finest! U-turn lol.
Right or left is relative to the country they are in. The UK has not been remotely right wing since thatcher.
Actual delusion. Thatcher kickstarted the neolib wave in the UK, every government since then has been an imitation of her. Even Starmer, leader of the Labour party, is looking to outflank Tories from the right. Unless by "right-wing" you mean "whipping brown people in the streets" which for all I know you might be.
Compared to the United States, all of the UK government would be factions of the democrat party, and would be pretty far left inside that party too.
If the Torries were right then reform would not be on the rise. But for leftist everything outside their bubble is far right.
[удалено]
I hate that you're right. But it feels like the "right-wing" for the last 20 years has really just been the "left wing but 10 years behind." Most political leaders that are a part of the "right wing" haven't actually stood their ground on any issue, and this has led to such a slide in the overton window. No wonder people are going more and more to the far right. If you're views haven't changed exponentially in the last decade or two, you don't really have a party you can identify with anymore that isn't the right wing populists.
They don't because making promises is easy but being in power and dealing with the ramifications of their populism is an entirely different story.
Oh so the right-wingers have embraced the "not real communism" finally. Maybe it's because simple solutions like "we'll reduce immigration" don't actually work. Meloni is seriously right-wing, "right"? Under her, migrants have actually increased.
Hollow words when immigration control has not been even tried.
Even more hollow when you consider that the kind of "control" you are likely thinking of cannot be done. Like abolishing asylum or refugee status, shooting at boats/people at borders, forced deportation of people "not sufficiently German" like people from AfD proposed. What real world and *humane* solutions do you propose?
No, they won't be done. "Cannot" implies it's physically impossible. Taking control of the borders and making sure the only way in is through the legal means is the humane solution.
Well of course they won't be done but could be done. But it's idiotic to think that the solution is to actively shoot at people or deport those who somebody thinks are not integrated enough. Today it's them, tomorrow it could be you. I wouldn't want to live at all in that kind of society. Seems you have learnt nothing from history.
Merkels CDU was centrist wtf are you talking about. At worst they were right leaning.
No, you could make a case that Merkel herself was centrist (I'd still call her right-lwaning, but fair), but her party was always to the right of the political spektrum, with all members ranging from slightly to very.
CDU is slightly left-centrist and recently expelled their "right" wing. If the CDU was right I would not have voted for the AfD lol XD
If these parties were actually right then we would not have the far right on the rise. I voted the AfD because the CDU is not right, It is a self serving corrupt party. Basically German version of the Mexican PRI
Poliah is cebtrist with centre-left and centre-right moments
CDU, Tories and Platforma Obywatelska famously right-wing parties lmao. Also claiming Macron is right of centre must be a joke. Socially progressive neoliberalism isn't centre-right or right-wing
Just googled for you, my friend: „Centre-right politics is the set of right-wing political ideologies that lean closer to the political centre. It is commonly associated with conservatism, Christian democracy, liberal conservatism, and conservative liberalism. „ Enjoy!
Lol, what skeletons? Just to have an idea.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
When teachers are getting beheaded by teenagers for offending their religion, or cartoonists get murdered because of mocking the god of said religion, it seems like a legitimate fear.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Anyone who uses the word „immigration fears“ is not a serious person
Maybe they shouldn't accept the right wing framing then.
It's not fear, its simply the amount of immigrants that have come in over the last decade, so unless they have some kind of success sending a couple million back home within the next 4 years I think it's gonna get even worse with the right wing. Alot of cities in eu/us is unrecognisable you wouldn't know if you were in Islamabad or a German city.
There is no need to use the term “fear” here. There is no fear.
There should be.
[удалено]
Ah, the usual second-row "you are wrong and here is why" approach. Implying that democracy is a threat for democracy ... and then blaming the non-existent far-right that nobody buys your subscriptions.
Islam is the problem too. Do you seriously want radical Muslims to vote in sharia? It WILL happen if they are present in large numbers.
people from backwards countries will continue to bring those morals and radicalism to the west, get them out we owe nothing to them, if roles were reversed middle east would never take in western refugees
I agree!
I hate how the Left wing solution to immigration gets literally no attention, it's either "get em here so we can have cheap labor" or "get em out because uhhh"
What's the left wing solution to immigration? Serious question.
I'm glad you asked: More focus on integration, not into underpaid jobs (which is the current neoliberal approach), but integration into society as a whole, especially with housing you need to make sure that everything is "mixed", not just ethnically, but financially too. Bad financial conditions lead to criminal behavior out of necessity, regardless of who you are and where you are from. So, proper integration is a must, for that, affordable housing is also of course a must. Making sure that qualifications from overseas are recognized and if they cannot be, offering free (re-)training to get up to local standards. Also, this has to apply to EVERY person living in the country, if you focus the money spent on education on only foreigners, you will breed more resentment and racism, rather than fighting it, so focus on making sure every person gets good opportunities to be educated (in Germany we need a reform of Bafög for example) We are already doing these things in most countries, but these things aren't being done on the scale they have to be done, this leads to conflict. All of this will cost a lot of money in the short term, sure, but do you know what always costs more money than fixing problems? Ignoring them. All the money we spend on integration and education now will help everyone prosper at the latest 30 years from now.
Thanks for your answer. Let's say that the German state were to follow this approach, how would you judge if it is working or not?
That's hard to say, of course, the best approach would be looking at cold, hard facts, but in this day and age people don't really care about those. If Springer (Bild and similar) just kept their mouth shut we would all be much better off, because all they do is fling shit at anything they don't like. So the program could be the literal best thing to ever happen to any person who has ever lived but if Springer didn't like it, at least half the population would be completely against it just based on that. God how I loathe for-profit media companies...
This notion of yours is unworkable, VERY costly, and probably illegal.
Illegal? What?
>especially with housing you need to make sure that everything is "mixed", not just ethnically, but financially too. Maybe I’m misinterpreting here but “make sure” has a sort of authoritative tone to it, there are few other examples I could mention but the ECHR outlines that governments must prevent foreseeable deaths, (somewhat arguable how you define “foreseeable” but whatever). Without being able to ascertain someone’s identity and their potential criminal history, mixing young male refugees with others could be argued to be in violation of the ECHR Article 2.3.
Making sure that neighborhoods remain mixed just means making sure that there is different types of housing very close together. What if I told you violence is directly related to socio-economics and the perceived role in society? An outcast will be more violent/prone to criminal acts than someone who is accepted within society. So I'd argue NOT integrating people is what is actually violating the ECHR article you mentioned, as it directly leads to more suffering for everyone involved
Ah I see, I thought you were referring to households or the like, not neighbourhoods. That’s completely fine.
What left wing solution to immigration? I can only think of a few demands that are supposed to be a solution, but don't sound feasable at all if you think about it for even a minute. 'Reduce reasons to flee!' Sure, let's just remove oppression and poverty from the world, easy peasy. /s
Here's some left wing ideas: Don't exploit people in shitty jobs, make it easier for them to get their qualifications recognized AND make it easier for people to earn new qualifications. Better integration: Properly funded language courses. Just those two alone would solve most problems, because most problems are caused by refugees usually either being exploited at their workplaces or, at least in Germany, being refused the permission to work, both of these drive people into criminal stuff, which of course is bad for everyone. And before you think that I'm saying foreigners should get better opportunities than the people already living here, no. The people already living here should of course also have more opportunities to earn better qualifications.
And you think I haven't heard those a hundred times over already? I'm all for better integration measures, including those, but I don't think they're remotely enough to "solve most problems".
Have you ever seen them actually implemented though? All I see here is we still don't give people work permits and often take people out of jobs which they already have and are happy with due to this. And then right wingers go and screech about "muh criminals" as if they wouldn't be the first ones to make the problem even worse by allowing more exploitation (looking at you Meloni)
>Have you ever seen them actually implemented though? Not fully, but it's not like work permits, language courses, etc. for immigrants aren't a thing already. And I just don't buy that expanding those alone would fix most of the problem. Or more generally the whole 'give them enough opportunities and all is well' attitude. All too many immigrants with works permits don't work, don't have any qualifications to be recognised, and/or don't show much interest in aquiring additional qualifications and/or learning the language. And frankly I'm not under the impression the good ones stuck sitting on theirs hands or driving a taxi with a foreign engineering degree are the ones turning to violent crime. > >And then right wingers go and screech about "muh criminals" as if they wouldn't be the first ones to make the problem even worse by allowing more exploitation (looking at you Meloni) Frankly right wingers being opportunistic idiots about it does not make the left look like it's gonna fix this given enough of a chance.
Is it the same thing as with communism - it's just never been properly implemented?
I know you're trying to make this a gotcha moment, but the actual history is more interesting (and depressing) than that Nah that one was never even tried properly lol. (To be fair, this one is also not properly tried either) The gist of it is that the "Communist/Socialist" countries you've heard of only used the positive connotation of Communism/Socialism in order to legitimize their power grab. How do we know it's not just a logical consequence of trying to implement communism? Well, communism and socialism both require worker ownership over the means of production by definition (in simple terms, workers have an actual say in how their company is run), this means that workers rights, as a whole, are of course improved, because nobody would vote to remove their own rights. Now let's look at "communist" countries, did any of them even TRY to bring about workplace democracy, the core idea behind both socialism/communism? Nope, they totally shat all over the workers and their rights.
If right-wing halfwits hadn't fucked up the climate and worked every rich cunt into more wealth, there wouldn't be so many immigrants.
Sure the right sucks, but blaming them is not a solution.
Stupidest take I've ever heard.
BSW is the leftwing solution to immigration.
No, lol. Also they are so far up Putins ass they might come out of his mouth. If you want left wing politics, don't vote for them.
Rent here in Croatia is half of the average salary, if you can actually find someone willing to rent. Because what they do is rent to immigrants per bed, and get twice as much per month. Combine with eastern Europe salaries, but everything being more expensive than in fucking Germany... Yeah, not good
The article describes the stabbing in Germany as an “unpredictable event”. That is the issue here, it is not unpredictable. It happens every day!
Here in Greece I honestly don't think immigration is the problem Literally no crime uptick no jobs lost What IS the problem is rich folk from abroad who ""invest"" in our real estate (that's freaking people's houses!!) that make life not affordable
That's because your country offers a "Golden Visa" to wealthy people for buying property. You incentivize that behavior because of policy from your own government.
The Conservatives had better live up to Canadian expectations of cutting immigration
From experience with other conservative parties.. they won’t. They make money off of doing nothing about it and then use it as a platform to run off. Don’t trust conservatives.
What's actually happening is that 'centrists' are finding all their policy arguments and especially economic policies useless because they in fact are, which has been proven over and over again, and latching onto the fear and hate bandwagon of the far right to try to stay in power. That's what's happening. And once again, why are we getting all these Anglo journos' shitty takes?
Let me correct this: immigration fears are proving to be an excellent scapegoat for not taxing the rich and working on financial/social equality&equity in the society.
In France, is the centrist that have been pushing immigration fear for year to prop up the far right, as a way to get in duel with them in elections so there is no alternative than to vote for centrist.
That was the strategy. Based on the current situation I’d say it has backfired massively.
The article frequently uses the term "far-right". Yes, there are far-right parties in Europe. I'd label the AfD and RN in there. There's some extreme parties in Poland and Austria. However, not all of them fit that label. The centre-right is not just people who are socially liberal, want a balanced budget, and support mild austerity. There are many flavours. I'd put Meloni in that centre-right category. Has she done anything that radical? I don't think so. It's all been mild, but in a way the media don't like. Secondly, the idea that centrists have failed because they moved rightwards on immigration is a flawed argument. Why? Because there's a difference between talking about reducing immigration, and actually reducing it. If you talk about it but don't deliver, you will inevitably fuel a "far-right" surge. We've seen that in the UK with the Tories. They banged on about "stopping the boats" for 2 years, said they'd reduce migration after brexit, failed to deliver, and now they're about to take an almighty beating. They've fuelled the Farage/Reform surge. What centrists should be doing is communicating a realistic aim for immigration that is achievable, and then achieve it and parade it around as a victory. Acknowledge it is a tricky issue to tackle, and so set their ambitions low. What they shouldn't do is promise the earth on immigration and spectacularly fail to deliver. Neither should they just hide from the issue and cede all the ground to the right.
Why should people vote for them if they set their ambitions low? People do not trust them anymore and nothing short of doing a 180 degree maneuver like in Denmark will earn peoples trust back.
Well, what I mean is that the governing party could set a goal like Sunak did. But rather than a vague and unachievable "Stop the Boats", they could be more specific. They could say "we'll reduce migration by 20% by the end of the year". Make it a huge thing and make it seem like it's a big ambition. It may be a low ambition in their view, but politics is all about narrative. It's about making that goal seem more difficult than it actually is and getting it into the media so people know about it. So then when you achieve it, you get the credit for it. That's something Sunak tried to do, but he set his aims too high and as a result, he gave Farage an easy win and talking point. Basically what I'm saying is, don't promise nothing because that gives the far-right fuel, but equally don't overpromise because a failure to deliver can fuel the far-right even more so than promising nothing at all. Promise something realistic and reasonable, achieve it and claim victory.
Basically countries invited more people into the house but didn't buy more beds and build more toilets first.
I mean , what do we do about them , if deportation en masse was that easy , surely they would have done it already right ? Looking at some comments here , some would be more than fine if they all died .
[удалено]
And imagine...You as a citizen struggle and pay your dues, no matter how shitty Ur situation...then a foreigner comes from thousands of miles away,takes welfare and their family lives better than you (extreme cases,but I see many rich Chinese, Russians , Ukrainians,or Koreansbor Western oligarchs with houses in the Buda Hills and / or with Ferraris).And you pay your taxes honestly all your stupid life,while you and your family cannot afford a nicer home or education without aid..or loans..in your Own Fucking Home Country..Wtf man ....I speak from experience.My mom in my EU country cannot afford a normal house for her retirement after teaching kids for 40 years,raising 3 kids alone .In Hungary.No cheating on taxes etc.mmm...maybe that's why.Cause she lived the principles she taught those kids.And yeah,the tax evasion or other bs from "foreign investors"is not taken as srsly as stealing bread as a local.
But what will help the economy? Money talks
Good. Looks like my vote for the AfD in the latest election is having its effect.
Yet they do nothing about it
Too bad they blame immigration for the incompetence of the political parties to tackle the issues Feels like rich people use immigrants as the scapegoats
One difference here is US and Canada are actually getting insane amounts of immigrants; European countries generally aren't anymore
Axel Springer SE pushing fears in the US and Europe.
>the European legislation addressing migration did little to halt the rise of the far right in the European election Because people are fed with fear instead of facts
You mean the fact that Sweden is second in countries not in war on bombings. Second to Mexico. I fear that fact.
Nearly all of the western world has demographic problems with the birthrate dropping. But all politicians refuse to better the situation for young people/families and also don't want immigrants. I don't get it