6 ms·

>for no apparent reason, lately. for some godforsaken reason left-lib parties in europe think accepting infinity migrants forever is the most important thing t

>for no apparent reason, lately. for some godforsaken reason left-lib parties in europe think accepting infinity migrants forever is the most important thing to do this is becoming more and more unpopular with the voters, leading to right wing parties surging across europe (Denmark, which has an immigration restrictionist left wing government doesnt seem to have an issue here, true mystery) obviously the solution here is total control of the internet, so that you can suppress dissent

wolvoleo 2mo ago
> for some godforsaken reason left-lib parties in europe think accepting infinity migrants forever is the most important thing to do This is completely BS. Nobody wants to let in unlimited migrants. This is not a goal of anyone, including the left-most left. In fact on the left we are very aware that our welfare systems can't support unlimited people. The left wing parties just wish to honour existing international treaties which we have signed to allow genuine asylum seekers. There's processes in places to determine whether they deserve this. The right just want to turn their boats back as they approach (pushback) which is literally illegal. It's important to realise though that asylum seekers are not the root cause of most of our issues even though they are portrayed as such by the right in deflection from the real issues. For example here in Holland the biggest societal issue is the farmers who pollute too many nitrogen compounds and that causes housing projects to be put on hold. The number of asylum seekers has been steadily decreasing over the years. But farmers make up a huge piece of the right wing so they'll never take ownership of the problem. Better to deflect on someone else.
- jalapenoj 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - spwa4 2mo ago
    For the insane part of the left, yes. For the majority, let's be honest: no. And for the centrist voters without whom neither the left nor the right can do anything: absolutely not. Immigration was going to solve our economic troubles. Immigrants would bring welfare. That was the idea. Well, that didn't happen. As to whether that's to blame on immigration ... I would argue it's to blame on the rate and the source of immigration. At a slow rate, selective immigration brings welfare, certainly. At this rate? Of course not. Infinite, mostly fake, refugees? No they don't bring welfare. Of course not.
    - wolvoleo 2mo ago
      Nobody's talking about allowing infinite numbers of immigrants. I don't know where that story even comes from.
      - spwa4 2mo ago
        Comes from Spain's current government for one: https://archive.ph/8hmjw https://archive.ph/8hmjw Diego Rubio, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s chief of staff: "... The government provided fast-track work authorization for immigrants in sectors with labor shortages, streamlined the process for employers to apply for foreign work visas, and made it easier for immigrants to settle in so-called Empty Spain ..." So yes leftist parties are talking about allowing very large numbers of immigrants to "save the economy" (to live and work where nobody wants to live and work: low-wage jobs on the empty Spanish countryside. But it takes immigrants a number of years, apparently about 8, to realize why not. As to how anyone can honestly describe that as an actual pro-immigration stance is beyond me. It's exploiting people)
  - wolvoleo 2mo ago
    Those processes benefited ourselves during WWII. But this anger and hatred you demonstrate so well is exactly what the right feeds off. That's why they are gaslighting you. Anger activates and motivates more than happiness. Unfortunately it's a dead-end road, it doesn't solve anything, because immigrants and asylum seekers in particular aren't the cause of our problems. The hatred just serves to distract from the real problems. The richest getting ever richer, environmental pollution, issues nobody wants to solve because they touch their voter base (like the farmers in Holland I mentioned).
- yolo3000 2mo ago
  Numbers are going down, but in my area there are now 4 buildings with asylum seekers. Started with a hotel, then an office building, then some newly built expensive houses that were first up for rent and now rented for asylum seekers, and now another office building. Honoring existing treaties out of principle can also be put on hold when the situation changes.
  - wolvoleo 2mo ago
    If they are only asylum seekers, it means they are still in the validation process. Unfortunately the hard-right has also defunded that process for many years, and have thus created this problem themselves. The agencies tasked with figuring out if asylum seekers have a legitimate claim are overwhelmed with all the work. This is purely a self-created problem (intended to gaslight the population in there being a huge 'immigrant problem').
  - sunshowers 2mo ago
    From what I can tell, a big part of the problem in Europe is that people seeking asylum are prohibited from making a living (due to widespread belief in the lump of labor fallacy) and so have to be dependent on welfare.
    - wolvoleo 2mo ago
      Yes and when a government tries to do something about that (like Spain granting temporary permits so they can work and pay taxes) it angers the right even more.
      - anonzzzies 2mo ago
        The issues here are the same as they have been forever in every country; Spanish people simply are not going to do the jobs the immigrants are doing. This is the same in every country I lived in or visited, including the US. In Spain, most my uneducated neighbours feel too high to even work in bars, let alone pick fruit, shovel shit, pick up garbage etc. So who is going to do that besides immigrants who are eager to do it; a few generations later, they will vote right and complain about immigrants and will say they are too good to shovel shit, of course.
- bluescrn 2mo ago
  > The left wing parties just wish to honour existing international treaties which we have signed to allow genuine asylum seekers. But these are treaties are no longer fit for purpose, as can be seen by the boatloads of mostly young male economic migrants turning up in the UK to 'claim asylum'. People who've got thousands of euros to pay the small boats traffickers. If they were refugees fleeing war or other dangers, you'd expect a lot more families - women, kids, the elderly - to be making the journey. (Of course, legal migration to the UK is vastly higher than illegal arrivals. And this is the larger issue putting pressure on housing, healthcare, transport, and more. But the small boats are a glaring example of a broken system being exploited)
  - wolvoleo 2mo ago
    Well, don't forget some of these wars are caused by us. The Western countries invaded Iraq under false pretenses so Dubya could make his Halliburton buddies happy. As a result and pure neglect to form a legit democratic government after the war a power vacuum ensued which caused the rise of ISIS which contributed to the war in Syria. Which directly caused the mass migration on foot from Syria. In this way we do have responsibility towards them. The migration from Africa is a different issue but it is already possible to quickly reject asylum-seekers from known-safe countries. > Of course, legal migration to the UK is vastly higher than illegal arrivals. And this is the larger issue putting pressure on housing, healthcare, transport, and more. Well exactly but nobody is talking about that. Everyone is talking about the asylum seekers. Which are only a small part of the issue. And the pressure on housing is very multifaceted. A lot of NIMBYism when it comes to new construction, and boomers who have invested in the housing market and don't want to see their investment evaporate by more supply on the housing market. So the parties backed by those with money are always obstructing new construction and other means to make housing cheaper. This is a much bigger problem when it comes to housing than those few apartments granted to asylum seekers.
    - graemep 2mo ago
      > The Western countries invaded Iraq under false pretenses True, but I would say the current refugees are not those who most need refuge. Religious minorities who are the most threatened by ISIS are under-represented. > it is already possible to quickly reject asylum-seekers from known-safe countries. It does not happen though. it happens in the end, but the system in ridiculously slow and inefficient. > And the pressure on housing is very multifaceted. A lot of NIMBYism when it comes to new construction, and boomers who have invested in the housing market and don't want to see their investment evaporate by more supply on the housing market. That is true.
Thraway198 2mo ago
In Canada, there's been a lot of talk about how immigration, "broke the Canadian consensus," around immigration as a good thing. The problem is, there never was a consensus around immigration. The Liberals own stats prove that. What there was was a consensus around multiculturalism and tolerance. Immigration itself, was always split evenly among three camps in Canada: those who want more, those who want less, and those who think we have the right amount. Trudeau & his fake leftist brigade many have ruined multiculturalism for a large portion of Canadians, permanently.
- spwa4 2mo ago
  The promise (for the non-insane majority) was that immigration was going to save our economic bacon. That's the orthodox economist viewpoint after all. Well, it didn't. The minimum anyone would have to accept is that the economy went to shit while mass immigration was happening ... (in both EU and Canada). So I guess you don't have to accept causation, but they were happening simultaneously, so this reaction by the population is justified in that sense.
  - Thraway198 2mo ago
    I agree that it's justified. SOME immigration is needed in order to save "duh economy," but what we got instead was economic warfare against workers.
    - modo_mario 2mo ago
      It's not even that some migration is need to save the economy. You'd need pronatalist policies or you're going to be doing that "some immigration" for ever and ever.
      - Thraway198 2mo ago
        Hm well then perhaps it's time to focus on saving "people," over the economy. Perhaps...states are actually best used to serve their people, instead of endless growth.
dminik 2mo ago
Denmark was one of the main countries pushing for Chat Control 2.0 ...
akimbostrawman 2mo ago
[flagged]
- watwut 2mo ago
  Fascist and nazi are political movements. It is not dehumanizing to call fascist movements fascists
  - akimbostrawman 2mo ago
    [flagged]

wolvoleo 2mo ago

> for some godforsaken reason left-lib parties in europe think accepting infinity migrants forever is the most important thing to do This is completely BS. Nobody wants to let in unlimited migrants. This is not a goal of anyone, including the left-most left. In fact on the left we are very aware that our welfare systems can't support unlimited people. The left wing parties just wish to honour existing international treaties which we have signed to allow genuine asylum seekers. There's processes in places to determine whether they deserve this. The right just want to turn their boats back as they approach (pushback) which is literally illegal. It's important to realise though that asylum seekers are not the root cause of most of our issues even though they are portrayed as such by the right in deflection from the real issues. For example here in Holland the biggest societal issue is the farmers who pollute too many nitrogen compounds and that causes housing projects to be put on hold. The number of asylum seekers has been steadily decreasing over the years. But farmers make up a huge piece of the right wing so they'll never take ownership of the problem. Better to deflect on someone else.

jalapenoj 2mo ago
[flagged]
- spwa4 2mo ago
  For the insane part of the left, yes. For the majority, let's be honest: no. And for the centrist voters without whom neither the left nor the right can do anything: absolutely not. Immigration was going to solve our economic troubles. Immigrants would bring welfare. That was the idea. Well, that didn't happen. As to whether that's to blame on immigration ... I would argue it's to blame on the rate and the source of immigration. At a slow rate, selective immigration brings welfare, certainly. At this rate? Of course not. Infinite, mostly fake, refugees? No they don't bring welfare. Of course not.
  - wolvoleo 2mo ago
    Nobody's talking about allowing infinite numbers of immigrants. I don't know where that story even comes from.
    - spwa4 2mo ago
      Comes from Spain's current government for one: https://archive.ph/8hmjw https://archive.ph/8hmjw Diego Rubio, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s chief of staff: "... The government provided fast-track work authorization for immigrants in sectors with labor shortages, streamlined the process for employers to apply for foreign work visas, and made it easier for immigrants to settle in so-called Empty Spain ..." So yes leftist parties are talking about allowing very large numbers of immigrants to "save the economy" (to live and work where nobody wants to live and work: low-wage jobs on the empty Spanish countryside. But it takes immigrants a number of years, apparently about 8, to realize why not. As to how anyone can honestly describe that as an actual pro-immigration stance is beyond me. It's exploiting people)
- wolvoleo 2mo ago
  Those processes benefited ourselves during WWII. But this anger and hatred you demonstrate so well is exactly what the right feeds off. That's why they are gaslighting you. Anger activates and motivates more than happiness. Unfortunately it's a dead-end road, it doesn't solve anything, because immigrants and asylum seekers in particular aren't the cause of our problems. The hatred just serves to distract from the real problems. The richest getting ever richer, environmental pollution, issues nobody wants to solve because they touch their voter base (like the farmers in Holland I mentioned).
yolo3000 2mo ago
Numbers are going down, but in my area there are now 4 buildings with asylum seekers. Started with a hotel, then an office building, then some newly built expensive houses that were first up for rent and now rented for asylum seekers, and now another office building. Honoring existing treaties out of principle can also be put on hold when the situation changes.
- wolvoleo 2mo ago
  If they are only asylum seekers, it means they are still in the validation process. Unfortunately the hard-right has also defunded that process for many years, and have thus created this problem themselves. The agencies tasked with figuring out if asylum seekers have a legitimate claim are overwhelmed with all the work. This is purely a self-created problem (intended to gaslight the population in there being a huge 'immigrant problem').
- sunshowers 2mo ago
  From what I can tell, a big part of the problem in Europe is that people seeking asylum are prohibited from making a living (due to widespread belief in the lump of labor fallacy) and so have to be dependent on welfare.
  - wolvoleo 2mo ago
    Yes and when a government tries to do something about that (like Spain granting temporary permits so they can work and pay taxes) it angers the right even more.
    - anonzzzies 2mo ago
      The issues here are the same as they have been forever in every country; Spanish people simply are not going to do the jobs the immigrants are doing. This is the same in every country I lived in or visited, including the US. In Spain, most my uneducated neighbours feel too high to even work in bars, let alone pick fruit, shovel shit, pick up garbage etc. So who is going to do that besides immigrants who are eager to do it; a few generations later, they will vote right and complain about immigrants and will say they are too good to shovel shit, of course.
bluescrn 2mo ago
> The left wing parties just wish to honour existing international treaties which we have signed to allow genuine asylum seekers. But these are treaties are no longer fit for purpose, as can be seen by the boatloads of mostly young male economic migrants turning up in the UK to 'claim asylum'. People who've got thousands of euros to pay the small boats traffickers. If they were refugees fleeing war or other dangers, you'd expect a lot more families - women, kids, the elderly - to be making the journey. (Of course, legal migration to the UK is vastly higher than illegal arrivals. And this is the larger issue putting pressure on housing, healthcare, transport, and more. But the small boats are a glaring example of a broken system being exploited)
- wolvoleo 2mo ago
  Well, don't forget some of these wars are caused by us. The Western countries invaded Iraq under false pretenses so Dubya could make his Halliburton buddies happy. As a result and pure neglect to form a legit democratic government after the war a power vacuum ensued which caused the rise of ISIS which contributed to the war in Syria. Which directly caused the mass migration on foot from Syria. In this way we do have responsibility towards them. The migration from Africa is a different issue but it is already possible to quickly reject asylum-seekers from known-safe countries. > Of course, legal migration to the UK is vastly higher than illegal arrivals. And this is the larger issue putting pressure on housing, healthcare, transport, and more. Well exactly but nobody is talking about that. Everyone is talking about the asylum seekers. Which are only a small part of the issue. And the pressure on housing is very multifaceted. A lot of NIMBYism when it comes to new construction, and boomers who have invested in the housing market and don't want to see their investment evaporate by more supply on the housing market. So the parties backed by those with money are always obstructing new construction and other means to make housing cheaper. This is a much bigger problem when it comes to housing than those few apartments granted to asylum seekers.
  - graemep 2mo ago
    > The Western countries invaded Iraq under false pretenses True, but I would say the current refugees are not those who most need refuge. Religious minorities who are the most threatened by ISIS are under-represented. > it is already possible to quickly reject asylum-seekers from known-safe countries. It does not happen though. it happens in the end, but the system in ridiculously slow and inefficient. > And the pressure on housing is very multifaceted. A lot of NIMBYism when it comes to new construction, and boomers who have invested in the housing market and don't want to see their investment evaporate by more supply on the housing market. That is true.

Thraway198 2mo ago

In Canada, there's been a lot of talk about how immigration, "broke the Canadian consensus," around immigration as a good thing. The problem is, there never was a consensus around immigration. The Liberals own stats prove that. What there was was a consensus around multiculturalism and tolerance. Immigration itself, was always split evenly among three camps in Canada: those who want more, those who want less, and those who think we have the right amount. Trudeau & his fake leftist brigade many have ruined multiculturalism for a large portion of Canadians, permanently.

spwa4 2mo ago
The promise (for the non-insane majority) was that immigration was going to save our economic bacon. That's the orthodox economist viewpoint after all. Well, it didn't. The minimum anyone would have to accept is that the economy went to shit while mass immigration was happening ... (in both EU and Canada). So I guess you don't have to accept causation, but they were happening simultaneously, so this reaction by the population is justified in that sense.
- Thraway198 2mo ago
  I agree that it's justified. SOME immigration is needed in order to save "duh economy," but what we got instead was economic warfare against workers.
  - modo_mario 2mo ago
    It's not even that some migration is need to save the economy. You'd need pronatalist policies or you're going to be doing that "some immigration" for ever and ever.
    - Thraway198 2mo ago
      Hm well then perhaps it's time to focus on saving "people," over the economy. Perhaps...states are actually best used to serve their people, instead of endless growth.

dminik 2mo ago

Denmark was one of the main countries pushing for Chat Control 2.0 ...

akimbostrawman 2mo ago

[flagged]

watwut 2mo ago
Fascist and nazi are political movements. It is not dehumanizing to call fascist movements fascists
- akimbostrawman 2mo ago
  [flagged]