> It was a country that made the choice to intertwine its destiny with Algeria forever.

It might be more appropriate to say it was a government that made this choice. The French nation didn't get a say. Just like all other Western governments deciding to allow mass immigration, the people generally our opposed but never get a voice.

This take is reductionist and irresponsible.

That's probably what the governments of ostensibly democratic countries were thinking when they decided to change their demographic destiny without actually getting the consent of the people first. "The people who complain are reductionist and irresponsible."

Please explain EXACTLY what is being removed from the argument, that if added, would change the argument in a meaningful way.

Labeling something reductionist doesn't mean it's reductionist, nor magically make the argument go away like you desire.

Even the most casual possible reading of history will give countless examples of governments acting against the wishes and best interest of their people, and instead acting in the best interest of the government. You can pretend otherwise, but that's choosing to be ignorant.

The same idea applies to the military-industrial complex in the US. Very few people are clamoring for further war. But neither major political party offers a legitimate alternative. There's no voting against it. Lobbying and direct monetary gain by the very top of society mean those in power want it, because they stand to gain personally, even if some recruit from a downtrodden town gets his legs blown off.

Likewise for mass immigration. The people in charge of major companies love reduced labor costs. And governments love increasing their tax base. They're the ones who get a say. Nobody else is even asked.

They chose to keep algeria during their democratic periods as well.

You're implicitly making a claim that's something like: "If a government hosts elections, any decision made by that government reflects The Will of The Majority in the country it rules." That's not true at all.

Let's set aside the complexities of how governments are formed in a parliamentary system, and also ignore the subversion of representative government by lobbying. This is really simple: there was no vote on this in any western government. And in fact, political parties that explicitly oppose further mass immigration to Europe are gaining rapidly in popularity. But the governments actively subvert them. For example, there is talk of outright banning Alternative for Germany, a political party in Germany opposed to mass immigration.

This.

So called left-wing parties now only care about Identity politics. They have abandoned the working classes.

"The people" are fine with lowering age of retirement, and in general not that interested in rising enough new people to sustain economy and social policies of their countries. Granted, immigration policies in most of the western countries has been a disaster, but those did not arrive out of nowhere. It would be great to see discussions and planning on how to shape policies, but this would only hopefully change the reception of immigrants, and not the fact that they're there to stay.

Immigration is to keep the wages down. Also, third world immigration is preferred because those immigrants are more tolerant of crap wages, crap working conditions and crap existence lifestyle than domestic workers.

If the elites really wanted more people they could increase the incentives for domestics to have children.

Immigrants are indeed more willing to do the jobs that domestic workers are no longer interested in doing, but their effect on wages is minimal, mostly affecting lower class, mostly other immigrants. It's unclear if there is anything that can be done to incentivise people to have more children, to the extent that it makes a difference on the macro level. And this is kind of moot point anyway, most western countries that deal with lack of labor force don't have time to wait for children, if their citizens want to keep their level of support.

I agree with that. But there’s a limit to how persuasive that is to generations who didn’t make the original decision. I don’t think there’s an easy solution (or any solution).

This reminds me of a Polynesian island that is part of the French overseas territories. You chose this and you are now responsible for them. The French built an undersea cable specifically for this Island. I don't think the cable will ever pay itself back but that is the cost of the privilege of calling a territory yours. (The cost was around 100 million €, the GDP of Wallis And Futuna is 180 million €).

https://www.afd.fr/en/actualites/wallis-and-futuna-broadband...

Algeria has been independent from France for 60 years. They gained independence after a terror campaign with bombings of public places (cafes), beheadings, etc.

A few questions: - Why do we have to host any Algerian, considering they are now independent? - Are we allowed to kick them out the way they kicked us out of their country sixty year ago? If not, why not?

> Are we allowed to kick them out the way they kicked us out of their country sixty year ago? If not, why not?

France is allowed to do this if it asserts the right to do so. The only question is: will it?