Poland.

> Immigrants seem like a token thing to get angry about when the chips are down and the country is mismanaged.

This has been the primary opinion of center to leftleaning parties for a decade now. There are very real problems with immigration, even more so if a large part of immigration consists of migrations of cultures that are incompatible with western ideas.

In many EU countries one of largest immigrant group is from Poland.

Poland has actually let in a record amount of migrants, particularly from non-EU countries.[1] Turns out their tough stance was a bunch of posturing and politicking. Perhaps the money they make from selling visas under the table trumps the solidarity payments.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/poland-government-admit-muslim-mi...

> Poland.

Poland never stopped immigration. In fact, it received roughly double the amount of immigrants in 2021 im comparison to 2 decades prior.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/957100/poland-immigratio...

This question is too broad to receive any satisfying answer. What's beneficial for a freemarket supporter is probably hurtful for a communist, with a lots of nuances in between. Also arguably the phenomenon is new in its current conditions, so historical precedents wouldn't be persuasive. However, the fact is that big influx of culturally different people usually upsets societies (and it is as much true for, say, India, or Kenya as for Netherlands), and it is reflected in political opinions shift. It's objective reality we can observe, and rhetorically discarding it (as a 'token thing') won't make it disappear.

Facts and Accuracy matters.

> PVV proposes to stop all immigration

The PVV proposes a "freeze on asylum" and "a generally more restrictive immigration policy".

Refugees from Africa and the middle east have struggled to assimilate, require more state resources, and generally commit crimes at a higher rate than natives and immigrants from other areas.

Its a problem of metrics, if you look at the conditions of the middle third of the population, then historically less migration is better as a rule. If you look at GDP then it's more muddy.

As an example the Australian immigration restriction act created some of the best conditions for workers, due to a high value of labour leading to high wages, increased negotiation power, and investment in labour saving innovation.

It was good for the nation and individual workers, but to use terminology familiar here, a single generation decided to enshitify the country and cash in, extracting all the present and future value of existing institutions.

Part of this is a massive propaganda campaign to try and convince you that every measure to restrict migration is racist or misguided... However migration is the most important and significant policy for a long term outcomes in a nation, we have millenia of history to show this.

It's difficult to look to historic precedent because the heart of all of these issues is fertility. This [1] is a graph of fertility rates in the US. Fertility rates just started plummeting catastrophically in the 60s. The exact same thing happened in the Netherlands. [2]

And that's what's causing the crisis. Fertility rates define not only the population in a region, but also the age distribution. Low fertility rates result in a population that will have many times more elderly people than youthful people, and will start shrinking far more rapidly than most realize. It will lead to both economic and social catastrophe. Trying to use mass immigration as a means of solving this problem is an inherently modern idea, because the problem did not exist in the past.

And IMO this isn't just an issue of management of a nation. Trying to create a stable economy and healthy society with a collapsing fertility rate may well just not be possible. On top of cultural conflicts there's also the fact you'll have to tax the death out of the youth in order to subsidize the elderly, at the same time those youth will find ever shrinking economic opportunities as your economy itself also naturally shrinks.

[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA

[2] - https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/NLD/netherlands/fertil...

Well the entirety of European history consists of Europeans making unbelievable progress in all aspects of medicine, science, philosophy, art, technology, warfare, music, industry, etc.

We somehow managed that without any Somalians.

While you can debate the causation of that correlation, there are many objectively awful outcomes for indigenous Europeans due to non-White immigration. For one, and I can't believe this is controversial but it is, a lot fewer Dutch children would experience r@pe (and gang r@pe) if isolated from ethnic strangers.

> We somehow managed that without any Somalians.

But not without taking away resources through overseas colonial possessions.

> would experience r@pe (and gang r@pe) if isolated from ethnic strangers.

Nice fearmongering there. Yes, Netherlands is a hellhole of gang rape, I couldn't even bike my way to the Jumbo down the road without dodging all the gang rape on the streets.

Do you think this absurd sarcasm will somehow change the fact that migrants are responsible for unprecedented levels of sex crime in Europe?

I'm really not sure what you hoped to achieve with that. The stats don't lie. People are noticing.

I know quite well what kind of people are "noticing".

It's not immigrants that I'm afraid of where I live. They are typically hard working people, doing all sorts of jobs. From food-delivery to software engineering.

It's the people "noticing" bullshit that I am really wary of.