I am under the impression that instead of preparing for climate immigration, EU citizens are actually slowly but surely mutually brainwashing themselves into increasing hate towards immigrants as a whole. From what I read and understood about climate change, a tsunami of immigrants from southern hemisphere countries towards northern hemisphere countries is to be expected.
I would rather have my elected ones work on a framework that will govern how this immigration could occur and how to make it work in everyone's bests interests. But it seems that people will mostly vote for whoever tells them he or she will make the country impenetrable.
Europe's population is aging drastically, we make less children and our workforce is shrinking. We produce less people that can offer social/medical/health care to the elders, less people who can pay taxes, and also less people who can defend the territory in case of armed conflict. Retirement planning is a catastrophy (younger generations are privileging individualized financial planning mechanisms instead of State protected and tax deducible solutions, and conversion rates for pension funds are also diminishing year after year). Finally, "non-white" immigrants seem to be perceived by locals as posing a security threat and nothing more.
Whether I look at my family, my friends or my colleagues, I feel surrounded by people who refuse to engage in the thought experiment further than "we should reinforce our borders".
Am I in denial when I acknowledge that both a mass immigration will occur towards the northern hemisphere, whether smoothly, or by force, and that any economy needs to preserve a strong workforce to keep florishing?
Outside observer, but my understanding is that a big concern is that people from more illiberal cultures will make the nation more illiberal. There is also concern that making low skilled labor more plentiful will be harmful to the prospects of existing low skilled labor. A third concern would be that if the immigrants express an ethnic preference for their own community, this will cause increasing difficulty for existing residents. If you want to convince people that immigration will be in their best interest, I'd start by finding ways to ameliorate those concerns.
Agreed. It seems to me e.g. Germany is very open to immigration in all forms, IF, immigrants are willing integrate sufficiently into the EU value system concerning equality of sexes, blindess towards ethnicity, freedom of religion etc. They're not brainwashed at all, they want to keep their culture free of brainwashing.
Europeans would rather go Japan - ie. keep their national identity and downsize, than America - healthy demographics, but constant cultural clashes and crime waves.
In full honesty, I fail to see how crime waves in the USA could be explained by immigration or racial/cultural diversity. From what I understand, it is mostly a consequence of families living through precarious jobs (and poverty), limited access to good education and a general lack of trust in the government, which they either perceive as powerless, or extremely unfair/brutal.
If I acknowledge that some communities are more likely to live their daily lives under these three factors altogether, it could explain why these communities may be more vulnerable to daily life challenges, and more easily resort to violence. Still, that doesn't give me a causal link between racial/cultural diversity and violence, far from it, but I can understand why those who prefer taking shortcuts may end up reaching this conclusion.
This shortcut is also very comfortable for the peace of mind: once I attribute violence to racial/cultural diversity, I can also safely conclude that I will never be part of the problem (if I consider myself as being part of the "good" racial/cultural group)...
I have lived in some of the poorest areas in Brazil, United States, Colombia, and Mexico. I have also lived in Moldova, and some really shitty parts of south St. Petersburg in Russia, and Kyiv.
I have noticed a very very very strong correlation of how dangerous it can be just to walk outside alone, or at night, or walk in public with your cellphone. I believe there is a link between violence and race and culture.
I am sorry to ask but I have the feeling that something is missing in your comment. You said you have lived in poor areas and observed violence, or did you mean that you witnessed violence only in a subset of the areas you listed?
I have experienced violent muggings myself, witnessed violence/assaults, sometimes even without reason or purpose, in Brazil, specifically Rio/Sao Paolo, Oakland/South Berkeley(during the early/mid 2000s before the tech hit), Bogota, and Medellin. I lived years in Mexico(CDMX/tlalnapantla) and experienced all but the most opportunist crimes, like pickpockets, and nonviolent crimes.
Contrast that with living in a very poor neighborhood in Chisinau, in Moldova. Iasi, in Romania, Kiev, and Saint petersburg. I never really felt in danger at all, I could walk home at whatever hour, go on a walk, take out my cellphone. The closest to being dangerous was desperate drug addicts in St. Petersburg.
These places/slums in eastern europe are just as poor, have the same problems with the same drugs. But the level of random violence in 'diverse' places just doesn't exist. I know it sounds fucked up like I am a fox news anchor, or something, but it is just something I have noticed.
It seems the more monoculture a society is the more safe it is in the poor areas. Specifically Europe, Asia, and the middle east. I don't know how to explain it without sounding like a racist so I wont.
The EU can mostly integrate migrants from within the EU, conflicts because of East to West migration aside (see Brexit). It can also integrate migrants from other countries with shared cultural values like the US, Australia, Japan, etc. Basically other democracies and allies.
It has consistently failed to integrate other migrants, especially from the MENA countries. At this point, experience has proven that such large integrations are and will be out of reach for the EU.
The only logical conclusion is therefore that the EU has to prepare to reject further migration. Even hopeless cases like Sweden are starting to take action in that direction.
While I can see you try to be nuanced you're only achieving depicting the situation in a moralistic view.
You're postulating many things that are not necessarily true (by definition) :
- that massive immigration to the EU will succeed
- that EU needs more unskilled labor
So "serious" politicians shouldn't promise one thing or its opposite but have a global view of the best interests of THEIR electors and act accordingly.
I will hence have to take the antithesis to balance it overall :
- with automation and the current unemployed people ("natives" or not) already in the EU, more unskilled labor is not what is needed
- a cohesive society is not solely based on its productive capacity
its better to develop Marshall like plans for the affected areas (MENA + WESTERN AFRICA); them will generate stability,jobs,commerce and returns for investors. the problem is local political leadership which will want "tailored kickbacks" even at their countries stake (or will cry to go on China lap). but Necessities like the "green wall" could create an example on wich plan future project and garner support at alls levels. Btw Europe doesnt need migrants, its mostly overpopulated and economies are more about outputs than unskilled workforce. Paying pensions will be a problem, solvable with bankruptcies that could maybe cure the fetish for welfare socialism of PIGS+France. nations cant absorb generally speaking more than a low percentage of immigrants/settlers before creating problems/attritions.
its beeter to develop Marshall like plans for the affected areas (MENA + WESTERN AFRICA); them will generate stability,jobs,commerce and returns for investors. the problem is local political leadership which will want "tailored kickbacks" even at their countries stake (or will cry to go on China lap). but Necessity like the "green wall" could create an example to wich plan future project and garner support at alls levels. Btw Europe doesnt need migrants, its mostly overpopulated and economies are more about outputs than unskilled workforce. Paying pensions will be a problem, solvable with bankruptcies that could maybe cure the fetish for welfare socialism of PIGS+France. nations cant absorb generally speaking more than a low percentage of immigrants/settlers before creating problems/attritions.
I would rather have my elected ones work on a framework that will govern how this immigration could occur and how to make it work in everyone's bests interests. But it seems that people will mostly vote for whoever tells them he or she will make the country impenetrable.
Europe's population is aging drastically, we make less children and our workforce is shrinking. We produce less people that can offer social/medical/health care to the elders, less people who can pay taxes, and also less people who can defend the territory in case of armed conflict. Retirement planning is a catastrophy (younger generations are privileging individualized financial planning mechanisms instead of State protected and tax deducible solutions, and conversion rates for pension funds are also diminishing year after year). Finally, "non-white" immigrants seem to be perceived by locals as posing a security threat and nothing more.
Whether I look at my family, my friends or my colleagues, I feel surrounded by people who refuse to engage in the thought experiment further than "we should reinforce our borders".
Am I in denial when I acknowledge that both a mass immigration will occur towards the northern hemisphere, whether smoothly, or by force, and that any economy needs to preserve a strong workforce to keep florishing?
What am I missing here?