The best thing you can do for people in other countries is help them clean up their own countries. People keep calling it colonialism though.
> The best thing you can do for people in other countries is help them clean up their own countries
What do you live in hole or something? They're coming because they cannot survive in their own countries due to war, genocide, famine and other very serious problems that cannot be solved anytime soon. Get real.
Nope. Please stop guessing. Only 35.4% were born in Europe. It's no wonder you come to your terrible conclusions if you just make things up and don't bother to look up trivial facts.
> If you take in too many immigrants you'll just destabilize Switzerland
This is just racism.
> Switzerland
Why should anyone listen to your racism when you're confounding Sweden and Switzerland when it's written right in front of your face?
>This is just racism.
It's not in fact, it's well known that if the immigration rate is too high (and this limit gets lower the more incompatible the cultures and people are) in any country you get political instability.
>Confounding Sweden and Switzerland
Sorry, I'm an American. Everything in Northern/Western Europe that isn't France, Britain, or Germany kind of blends together. It shouldn't matter anyway though right?
It really is because you're missing the part about where we all have massive immigration and don't have "political instability" (quite the opposite really.) Total first and second generation immigrants here are 25%. Every 16th person is a first generation immigrant originating from outside of Europe. We're still number 7 on the Human Development Index in the world (the US is at 18), and within the top 5 for standard of living. Our murder rate is 1.08, while yours is 4.96! What's this magical threshold that we need to pass in order to get the food riots? Where do you get these ideas?
You're not going to change your mind even a little after what I'm telling you?
1/10 black people here are first generation immigrants which is extremely destabilizing to their communities. Remember that these communities account for the majority of homicides here (according to the federal government.)
While 75% (really closer to 85%) of your population is native or White only ~60-50% of the US is now (depending on how you count.)
Poor people commit murder. Black people in America are poor (because history but also because America is still extremely racist and won't lift a finger to make up for that history.)
> 1/10 black people here are first generation immigrants which is extremely destabilizing to their communities
You're not thinking this through. 1/3 of our non-European immigrants are first generation, so your racist theory would predict that we would have an even higher murder rate than you have.
Actually, only 2.8% of your population is native.
Ok, so that's about the same as what's going on in the Black communities. Maybe have a look at the homicide statistics for the places these immigrants go and I'd bet you'll find a very similar picture.
>Your racist theory would predict that we would have an even higher murder rate than you have.
No, again these nations are more racially homogeneous. They're able to absorb much more of this right now than we can.
>Poor people commit murder.
That's not the whole picture, you can compare poor Black communities and equivalently poor White communities and the Black ones have a much higher rate of crime. Whether that's due to institutional racism or things like this (which I would argue is essentially just another kind of institutional racism) is up to your interpretation.
>Make up for the history
What do you want us to do? We already net negative on the average Black person due to social programs. We're legally barred from discriminating against them in any meaningful way (to the point that many are starting to ask to bring discrimination back.) Should we burn the country down again for them this year? None of the living people were involved and if you look carefully you'll find it was largely the Jewish population doing that. Should we go down that rabbit hole?
>Actually, only 2.8% of your population is native.
Because the nations that used to exist here were overrun by foreigners. Those ended up driving the population out of their lands and tried to eradicate their culture. This kind of thing is what I'm arguing against but you're hung up on skin color and not seeing it.
People in wealthy, food-secure countries are. (immune to the potential to need to migrate)
It will happen here too.
On the other hand if you let them in, Putin's media will go out of its way to stage provocations or pay some of the refugees to wreak havoc. "Your governments are letting in rapists, so much for European tolerance!"
They'll love it either way. The only way around it is to sink Black Sea fleet and prevent the whole famine from happening.
I expect this to change with any future waves. It's hard to be a trendsetter, but easy to be a follower.
You left out the part about turning to fascism. Anyway, none of what you mentioned helped immigrants nor resolved the reason for their immigration, so it seems more like the least sensible being that it was a complete failure.
> The rest of the governments mostly pretended the problem doesn't exist.
Excuse me? This isn't remotely true. It was the main topic for half a decade. We housed, clothed, fed and educated millions of people in need of our help and it was an amazing success!
Why do you think people "turn to fascism" in the first place??
Seems to me it is often a combination of dissatisfaction with some problems and a charismatic leader that promises an easy fix (if you only give him a lot of power and allow him to silence the opponents).
Sometimes the original problem isn't fixed at all and may even increase, sometimes it is replaced by more serious problems. But at the beginning it seems like things have improved, because the criticism has been silenced. Later, people who perceive the problems are afraid to speak up.
This may seem like an advice for democracies to avoid letting problems grow too large, otherwise you risk fascism. While solving problems is generally a good advice, it is not necessarily a question of letting a problem grow too large. Sometimes the problem can be relatively small, but the timing is unfortunate and it happens right before the election. It is also a question of whether you have a charismatic wannabe fascist leader who is well prepared at the right moment. Two or three smaller problems appearing at the right moment can bring a disaster that wouldn't happen if those problems appeared a few months apart.
Sounds like what is happening now in most of the Western world.
Ummm, can you provide one or more example of this? The "Two or three smaller problems appearing at the right moment can bring a disaster" sounds plausible but just one small one?
"Everyone I disagree with is a Nazi." [1] In the real world, Orban was just reelected with overwhelming majority (increasing his vote share). He didn't contribute to the causes of said migration and didn't set out to solve the problem either, he just made sure his country and the people that elected him were minimally impacted.
> We housed, clothed, fed and educated millions of people in need of our help and it was an amazing success!
This is precisely the problem. In Europe, we maintain a high standard of living, and a social safety net. That simply isn't logically compatible with unrestricted illegal immigration (because the resources with which we run the social safety net aren't infinite). We need different solutions, preferably solving these problems (food, housing, ...) where they happen (would also be much cheaper!)
[1] https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/818/hit...
You assert that it's much cheaper to solve these problems without moving the people. It is not nearly so cut-and-dry.
When someone seeks to flee their homeland for Europe or America, it's generally because something is very wrong where they are coming from. Often, the problem includes some sort of kleptocratic, warmongering, authoritarian, or incompetent government. (Sometimes it is not strictly government — e.g. terrorism, cartels.)
It's often much easier to move people than reform institutions, and open migration worldwide would be a reform worth about $78 trilllllllllllllion. https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/a-world-of...
The only realistic solution is reforming institutions where the people are.
The only interests this wannabe dictator will secure are his own.
Go move to Hungary if you find autocracy so appealing.
> In the real world, Orban was just reelected with overwhelming majority (increasing his vote share)
You do realize Hitler was elected with an overwhelming majority too, right?
> and the people that elected him were minimally impacted.
Right, by letting people at their doorstep die. That's the problem.
> This is precisely the problem.
No, it was the solution to the actual existing problem.
> unrestricted illegal immigration
First, we weren't talking about "illegal immigration", we were talking about millions of refugees. Second, nothing about it was unrestricted.
Hitler or rather the Nazi party infamously didn't win "with an overwhelming majority" in November 1932. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1932_German_federal_e... reminds me they "lost 34 seats and again failed to form a coalition government in the Reichstag" (emphasis added). They gained power by non-electoral means after this, starting with a deal where President Hindenburg made Hitler chancellor and they had "a short-lived coalition government formed by the NSDAP and the German National People's Party (DNVP)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power...)
His election results were so good, they were downright Putinesque. Not a lot of comments on hackernews made me laugh as intensively as yours.
The last ones caused some stirring. I expect a new wave will cause, too. So we can see some pressure from European governments for finding solutions to end the war.