Let's not get nationalist the other way either.

Some signs that a comment is probably bad by HN's standard: (1) general claims on provocative matters; (2) pejorative 'you'; (3) using the word 'actually' about something difficult; (4) promotion of one identity over another. The more such markers in a comment, the more troll effects it has, even if the trolling is unintentional. (Most is.)

Some things that counteract these effects: nuance; empathy; personal experience.

The difference between europe on one hand and the US and Canada on the other hand, is that in the latter cases, the original population has been "replaced".

As an European, I find it quite tasteless to be criticised by Canadians for our views on immigration, when you get the cream of the crop and we get the rabble mostly because of geographical reasons. To take an example from Turkey: you get the educated slice of society, liberal and progressive. We get the peasants that deem it normal to bury their daughters alive because they talk with boys. (This is an exaggeration, but you don't seem to mind heavy-handedness).

We don't oppose mass immigration because of the color of their skin or their religion, but because their views regarding women's rights, LGBT rights are so alien to ours, as well as because we don't actually manage to assimilate migrants fast enough to ensure our society thrives.

Why isn't education a solution to improve assimilation? Also, poor example on using Turkey, I don't think you can find many Turkish people that are opposed to women's rights or tolerating LGBT.

Being in favour of strong immigration policies is not something racist I believe. Each European tax payer pays their respective governments for having a save country to raise their children in. It's the governments task to make sure the people that do enter the country are real refugees or people that add value to the economy. And above all there should be no terrorists entering the country. But currently the influx into Europe is so big that for most immigrants no proper background checks are done. Also people that have known to have fought in Syria are also allowed back into our countries (at least this is true for my country, The Netherlands). I believe from these kinds of people we should take away their citizenship.

Other countries have much more sensible immigration policies, like the USA and Australia. Or most Asian countries, for that matter.

> Have you and your European friends tried actually addressing some of the racist beliefs you casually take for granted which lead you to discriminate against immigrants when it comes to integration into society?

I don't think this is fair at all. I'm of Middle Eastern stock (now living in the US) and even I was kind of shocked when I stayed near Gare du Nord in Paris (especially) and in some other parts of the city. I did not feel as if I was in Europe. It felt like a souk in Qatar. I date a French North African woman and so am acutely aware of the integration problems many (not all of course) immigrants have in France. Many old time French North Africans, who fought for normality in the French society over decades, are now finding themselves on the side of "the other" again because of unnecessary mass immigration of people who are certainly not french and secular enough like the North Africans who migrated in the 60s and 70s. New Islamic immigration is preying on 2nd and 3rd generation somewhat normalized immigrants and destroying a population that was integrated and also creating a divide among the different ethnic groups within the country.

You may consider this perspective to be racist. But I don't see how allowing racist Middle Easterners (like most people I grew up with) with homophobic tendencies (almost a given) to mass immigrate to a country is not racist itself.

> Whereas in Europe it seems that you are constantly defined by your ancestry, even after multiple generations.

Why is this an issue? It is an exception to have countries like America and Canada (both of which I adore) which are based on ideals [1]. Most nations are created after bloody ethnic wars (especially in Europe). It would be wrong to force them to give up their ancestral lands. A crude proxy for seeing this is to have a look at the birthright citizenship map [2]. Only a handful of nations have jus soil (US and Canada being among them). Majority are jus sanguinis. And the trend is for ethnic countries like Germany and Ireland to go more towards jus sanguinis. Ethnic countries like Ireland and India in fact used to be jus soil and have recently moved away from that to preserve the ethnicity. So for countries built on ethnicity, why would you expect it not to be the case that one is defined by their ancestry?

[1] And yes, there are significant problems with the history of America especially with respect to the Native Americans.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#/media/File:Jus_soli_...

You're comparing vastly different immigration systems, Canada takes in highly educated immigrants and your country has always been growing by immigration. Many European countries have their own share of unprivileged ethnic minorities or quite simply defranchised parts of the country where the big arrival of migrants economically threatens their livelihood, that's not racist.

> Whereas in Europe it seems that you are constantly defined by your ancestry, even after multiple generations.

Yeah, too many different languages, too many cultures and ages of history where Europeans ruled over each other precisely because of the ancestry and the power that went along with it. That is highly engraved in collective mind of most European countries.