There is an earth and there are a lot of people on it. We seek to define the circumstances in which people can move over the face of that earth and stay wherever they arrive.
Let's defer taking sides for a bit and see if there is some underlying morality.
If immigration is not a right, then exclusion is. Exclusion is projected by previous arrivals, with a couple of defined exceptions in countries like the US whose history is essentially a vivid expression of immigration being a right or exclusion not being a right.
If there is a morally sound reason for saying "I wish to deny to others the opportunities given to, and challenges faced by, me or my arriving ancestors, that would be lovely.
If there isn't a moral reason for saying that, please don't assume that "action on immigration" will actually be enough for its proponents. It is helpful to think clearly about what will happen if an AfD, or One Nation, or RefUK, causes the desired pain to people whose faces don't fit but the economic climax doesn't follow.
I think the important part is to give a bounded and conditional, but sincere and thought-through, explanation of why immigration can be a good thing, rather than "I don't like immigration either, but I'm not as crazy about it as those guys are". Between the right wing of the CDU in Germany, the Gaullist centre-right in France, and the Blue Labour bunch within the Labour party in the UK, we have no shortage of the latter in Europe.
But despite these people existing, and often introducing substantial immigration restrictions when in power, they're just not beating the extremists. It's impossible, factually, to deny that there has been a real recent tightening of migration policy in all three of those countries, especially the UK and Germany. It is just not carrying the day, however, against people who want ICE-scale deportations in the UK, or who want to permanently separate refugee children in schools from German children in Germany.
A partial counterexample is Switzerland, which is why I think making the case for immigration alongside the case for border control is important. There, a referendum that would have introduced substantial restrictions on immigration failed, narrowly but clearly. It did so in large part because the opponents of the measures made the case: migrants in Switzerland are economically necessary in large parts of the economy, they are already expected to meet stringent integration requirements if they want to stay and naturalise, and ending free movement with the EU would have led to the end of EU single market access.
It was partly, but not entirely. That was obviously an angle, especially because a neutrality initiative that also looks like an SVP/UDC trojan horse is due up this year. But it sat alongside arguments in favour of immigration on its own terms, with varying levels of intensity depending on where you were in Switzerland.
As someone who lived in the UK during the Brexit referendum, that was a real contrast. Almost nobody on the Remain side was actually willing to defend freedom-of-movement on its own terms. The party-line was instead, more or less, that it was a necessary evil to keep trade with the EU. It didn't work, and I doubt it would have worked if that's what the Swiss opponents of the immigration initiative had done either.
The problem is not skilled migration in Europe. All European countries have strict criteria to get work visa if you are coming from outside Europe. The problem is illegal migration and asylum seekers.
You write that ''migration is not a human right'' but that is exactly the issue: European countries signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which states that everyone can apply for asylum in a European country. Therefore politicians can promise all kind of changes to national laws but as ECHR overrules national laws their hands are tied. And this frustrates voters as they see that politicians are powerless. Basically there is only one solution of you want to stop the continues flow of asylum seekers and that is to leave the ECHR and maybe you would even need to leave the EU as the EU laws on asylum also overrule national laws. The other problem is that if asylum is denied you are expected to leave the country but obviously that hardlly happens or they keep moving around Europe trying their luck somewhere else.
Since this summer a new EU migration pact came into force that addresses some of the problems, but the core problem remains the same: anyone from anywhere in the world can apply for asylum in Europe according to the ECHR and EU laws. Therefore they will keep coming.
Would you consider adding "assimilation" to this discussion?
For a simple example: I feel there has been a lot of Left pushback against wanting immigrants to learn English. But opinion polls show most Americans would even go so far as making English our official language. The common view is as simple as "if you want to become and American, BECOME an American." In the 20th century, most immigrants I knew actually felt this way too! Oh, they might keep some traditions and foods from the old country, but they raised their kids as Americans.
Basically I think the economic argument will only go so far, and people really want assurances that new arrivals will not change the CULTURE of their country.
“For a simple example: I feel there has been a lot of Left pushback against wanting immigrants to learn English. But opinion polls show most Americans would even go so far as making English our official language”
A nothing burger of an issue. Even in deepest Hispanic pockets of the country, if the actual immigrant generation doesn’t know English that well the next generation is fine.
I absolutely love your point about liberals' tactical retreat - that's exactly what it feels like each time they toughen up a little bit. Nobody is convinced for long because it has this air of just 'classic cunning politics' which views the voters as stupid and with the memory of a gold fish.
But of course, voters have been clear for long all over the Western sphere - they can be okay with immigration, but it has to be done in a controlled and legal way, and no, they don't want this colonial retribution & open borders thing. That's just an elitist, detached-from-reality-and-the-rest-of-the-public thing, and no democracy has ever sanctioned actually.
So yes, it would be nice if immigration finally got a sustainable vision behind it which respects both sides of the aisle and therefore can be maintained. Without such a coherent and sustainable vision it won't be immigrants driving a wedge into our societies but our own lack of agreement on the topic.
The use of the word frontier here is a bit unfortunate.
Even within the American context, the frontier is where you go to be free of the laws of wherever you came from and to take what you want from the people who are already there.
YES. Yes yes yes. Sorry for a not very insightful comment, but so very true. We could have be in a much fairer and happier place if we find a better system, as well as deny power to the clusterfuck populists.
It’s one of the biggest regrets of my life that I went to Sg/HK instead of the US. I hope Americans do whatever it takes to restore your greatness. I will always we wishing you well.
No sane discussion on immigration policies between the left and the right (or the centre) can happen when one side just does not want to enforce any policy agreed upon and effected (even by its own side!) That, coupled with humanitarian concerns due to which immigrants already inside the country are, in effect, naturalised; means that the whole debate is largely one-sided in favour of the left.
We should keep our basic immigration principles simple: immigration to the US should be exactly in the amount and with the criteria established by Congress from time to time. And whatever Congress says, should be enforced humanely by the executive.
Beyond that, I do not know that my views are better than anyone else’s on this highly political issue.
Progressives have bleeding-heart blinders on with immigration and it shows.
They need to learn
- immigration is not a right
- well-meaning refugee /asylum laws can be abused
- not all immigrants are equal in their effects on the host country
- protection of a country's values is a good thing
This is what modern center-left and center-right parties need to embrace, high quality immigrants, pushing hard for assimilation, quicker to deport, less refugees and asylum seekers, values checks. I.e. it makes no sense to bring in people who want "death to America" or "death to the West" into the west - that's just self-destructive behavior and normal citizens don't want that. The progressives won't ever get it, so the other parties just need to embrace common-sense and move on without the progressives.
My father in law is a professor of social science in the UK. I recently asked him what the substantive policy debate about immigration should be, as it is completely lacking from public discourse.
His response: identity cards and labour laws.
This might be entirely relative to the UK, which has its own rising far right (Reform) with similar levels of crooks.
I personally never say myself supporting ID cards. But if it’s a choice between that and the country being run by Reform’s crooks, then I’d prefer to see a liberal government roll it out. The relevant safeguards are more likely to go in if it’s done by a liberal government.
I agree that a liberal philosophy of immigration would be economic in nature. But the point of having it, I suspect, is the translate it into policy choices that get put to the electorate.
I think the debate is absent from public discourse because there tends to be a slippery slope: the state gets nasty when it tries to enforce this kind of stuff. The most humane version of it is letting people rot in the gutter because their status chokes them off from access to things (like healthcare or shelter). Typically, it’s necessary to go further and start enclosing people in places that ultimately could look a bit like concentration camps.
But if liberals keep avoiding the issue we’ll all be reminded of the phase “evil succeeds when good people do nothing”.
I think this is basically very good policy on immigration. And clearly the USA and Europe need significantly different policies! I think Vance obviously loves parties like the afd that love Russia so he is trying to argue for a one size fits all immigration policy for the west. But the ironic thing is that his bosses North American map literally would make it borderless : it would all be USA territory 😆 Mr trumpichev tear down that wall 😎Who knew Trump was a closet DSA member 😄
There is an earth and there are a lot of people on it. We seek to define the circumstances in which people can move over the face of that earth and stay wherever they arrive.
Let's defer taking sides for a bit and see if there is some underlying morality.
If immigration is not a right, then exclusion is. Exclusion is projected by previous arrivals, with a couple of defined exceptions in countries like the US whose history is essentially a vivid expression of immigration being a right or exclusion not being a right.
If there is a morally sound reason for saying "I wish to deny to others the opportunities given to, and challenges faced by, me or my arriving ancestors, that would be lovely.
If there isn't a moral reason for saying that, please don't assume that "action on immigration" will actually be enough for its proponents. It is helpful to think clearly about what will happen if an AfD, or One Nation, or RefUK, causes the desired pain to people whose faces don't fit but the economic climax doesn't follow.
I think the important part is to give a bounded and conditional, but sincere and thought-through, explanation of why immigration can be a good thing, rather than "I don't like immigration either, but I'm not as crazy about it as those guys are". Between the right wing of the CDU in Germany, the Gaullist centre-right in France, and the Blue Labour bunch within the Labour party in the UK, we have no shortage of the latter in Europe.
But despite these people existing, and often introducing substantial immigration restrictions when in power, they're just not beating the extremists. It's impossible, factually, to deny that there has been a real recent tightening of migration policy in all three of those countries, especially the UK and Germany. It is just not carrying the day, however, against people who want ICE-scale deportations in the UK, or who want to permanently separate refugee children in schools from German children in Germany.
A partial counterexample is Switzerland, which is why I think making the case for immigration alongside the case for border control is important. There, a referendum that would have introduced substantial restrictions on immigration failed, narrowly but clearly. It did so in large part because the opponents of the measures made the case: migrants in Switzerland are economically necessary in large parts of the economy, they are already expected to meet stringent integration requirements if they want to stay and naturalise, and ending free movement with the EU would have led to the end of EU single market access.
The Swiss failure was a lot about people in Switzerland seeing as a trojan horse to mess up Switzerland's relationship with the EU.
It was partly, but not entirely. That was obviously an angle, especially because a neutrality initiative that also looks like an SVP/UDC trojan horse is due up this year. But it sat alongside arguments in favour of immigration on its own terms, with varying levels of intensity depending on where you were in Switzerland.
As someone who lived in the UK during the Brexit referendum, that was a real contrast. Almost nobody on the Remain side was actually willing to defend freedom-of-movement on its own terms. The party-line was instead, more or less, that it was a necessary evil to keep trade with the EU. It didn't work, and I doubt it would have worked if that's what the Swiss opponents of the immigration initiative had done either.
I flagged the Trojan Horse thing because that was the one bit that wasn't in your initial para, not because it was the entire reason for the failure.
The problem is not skilled migration in Europe. All European countries have strict criteria to get work visa if you are coming from outside Europe. The problem is illegal migration and asylum seekers.
You write that ''migration is not a human right'' but that is exactly the issue: European countries signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which states that everyone can apply for asylum in a European country. Therefore politicians can promise all kind of changes to national laws but as ECHR overrules national laws their hands are tied. And this frustrates voters as they see that politicians are powerless. Basically there is only one solution of you want to stop the continues flow of asylum seekers and that is to leave the ECHR and maybe you would even need to leave the EU as the EU laws on asylum also overrule national laws. The other problem is that if asylum is denied you are expected to leave the country but obviously that hardlly happens or they keep moving around Europe trying their luck somewhere else.
Since this summer a new EU migration pact came into force that addresses some of the problems, but the core problem remains the same: anyone from anywhere in the world can apply for asylum in Europe according to the ECHR and EU laws. Therefore they will keep coming.
“A large landslide”
They didn’t even get a majority of the votes! More people voted against 56% than for the AFD 44%.
That’s just how parliamentary elections work. Tony Blair won a crushing majority in 1997 with less than 44% of the vote.
A tiny mudslide 😆
Would you consider adding "assimilation" to this discussion?
For a simple example: I feel there has been a lot of Left pushback against wanting immigrants to learn English. But opinion polls show most Americans would even go so far as making English our official language. The common view is as simple as "if you want to become and American, BECOME an American." In the 20th century, most immigrants I knew actually felt this way too! Oh, they might keep some traditions and foods from the old country, but they raised their kids as Americans.
Basically I think the economic argument will only go so far, and people really want assurances that new arrivals will not change the CULTURE of their country.
“For a simple example: I feel there has been a lot of Left pushback against wanting immigrants to learn English. But opinion polls show most Americans would even go so far as making English our official language”
A nothing burger of an issue. Even in deepest Hispanic pockets of the country, if the actual immigrant generation doesn’t know English that well the next generation is fine.
I absolutely love your point about liberals' tactical retreat - that's exactly what it feels like each time they toughen up a little bit. Nobody is convinced for long because it has this air of just 'classic cunning politics' which views the voters as stupid and with the memory of a gold fish.
But of course, voters have been clear for long all over the Western sphere - they can be okay with immigration, but it has to be done in a controlled and legal way, and no, they don't want this colonial retribution & open borders thing. That's just an elitist, detached-from-reality-and-the-rest-of-the-public thing, and no democracy has ever sanctioned actually.
So yes, it would be nice if immigration finally got a sustainable vision behind it which respects both sides of the aisle and therefore can be maintained. Without such a coherent and sustainable vision it won't be immigrants driving a wedge into our societies but our own lack of agreement on the topic.
The use of the word frontier here is a bit unfortunate.
Even within the American context, the frontier is where you go to be free of the laws of wherever you came from and to take what you want from the people who are already there.
YES. Yes yes yes. Sorry for a not very insightful comment, but so very true. We could have be in a much fairer and happier place if we find a better system, as well as deny power to the clusterfuck populists.
It’s one of the biggest regrets of my life that I went to Sg/HK instead of the US. I hope Americans do whatever it takes to restore your greatness. I will always we wishing you well.
No sane discussion on immigration policies between the left and the right (or the centre) can happen when one side just does not want to enforce any policy agreed upon and effected (even by its own side!) That, coupled with humanitarian concerns due to which immigrants already inside the country are, in effect, naturalised; means that the whole debate is largely one-sided in favour of the left.
We should keep our basic immigration principles simple: immigration to the US should be exactly in the amount and with the criteria established by Congress from time to time. And whatever Congress says, should be enforced humanely by the executive.
Beyond that, I do not know that my views are better than anyone else’s on this highly political issue.
Progressives have bleeding-heart blinders on with immigration and it shows.
They need to learn
- immigration is not a right
- well-meaning refugee /asylum laws can be abused
- not all immigrants are equal in their effects on the host country
- protection of a country's values is a good thing
This is what modern center-left and center-right parties need to embrace, high quality immigrants, pushing hard for assimilation, quicker to deport, less refugees and asylum seekers, values checks. I.e. it makes no sense to bring in people who want "death to America" or "death to the West" into the west - that's just self-destructive behavior and normal citizens don't want that. The progressives won't ever get it, so the other parties just need to embrace common-sense and move on without the progressives.
My father in law is a professor of social science in the UK. I recently asked him what the substantive policy debate about immigration should be, as it is completely lacking from public discourse.
His response: identity cards and labour laws.
This might be entirely relative to the UK, which has its own rising far right (Reform) with similar levels of crooks.
I personally never say myself supporting ID cards. But if it’s a choice between that and the country being run by Reform’s crooks, then I’d prefer to see a liberal government roll it out. The relevant safeguards are more likely to go in if it’s done by a liberal government.
I agree that a liberal philosophy of immigration would be economic in nature. But the point of having it, I suspect, is the translate it into policy choices that get put to the electorate.
I think the debate is absent from public discourse because there tends to be a slippery slope: the state gets nasty when it tries to enforce this kind of stuff. The most humane version of it is letting people rot in the gutter because their status chokes them off from access to things (like healthcare or shelter). Typically, it’s necessary to go further and start enclosing people in places that ultimately could look a bit like concentration camps.
But if liberals keep avoiding the issue we’ll all be reminded of the phase “evil succeeds when good people do nothing”.
I think this is basically very good policy on immigration. And clearly the USA and Europe need significantly different policies! I think Vance obviously loves parties like the afd that love Russia so he is trying to argue for a one size fits all immigration policy for the west. But the ironic thing is that his bosses North American map literally would make it borderless : it would all be USA territory 😆 Mr trumpichev tear down that wall 😎Who knew Trump was a closet DSA member 😄
🙏🙏🙏 thank you