3 ms·

Being anti immigrant isn’t about being sensible, it’s about having a bogeyman to blame for all problems people face. It’s much easier to say “brown people took

Being anti immigrant isn’t about being sensible, it’s about having a bogeyman to blame for all problems people face. It’s much easier to say “brown people took your life away” than to face reality many small and large decisions made by the government and the people have led to the current outcome. For instance: > A palpable sense of decline has spurred support for the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party, which won nearly 40% of local votes in the February general election. People that don’t look “right” should seriously consider if this is the right place to live given the circumstances, which is going to make those with many options to never consider a place like this. What will be left? Not much, the rust belt in the US is a good example of towns dying because the population can’t accept outsiders. A friend, that’s a neurologist, moved to a small town in the Midwest, him and another dude were the two only neurologists in many and many miles, the supermarket cashier asked for his ID and if he was in the country legally and isn’t even brown, just cos of his accent. Couple of months later he moved to a large city that had no shortage of neurologists and will never come back to the countryside. These people will destroy whatever is left before they accept others, so that’s what what will be.

noduerme 1y ago
There are several very different types of anti-immigrant sentiment in the US. They differ by region and they also differ from the feelings in Europe. 1. Basic, racist, "this person is a different skin color". 2. "We're not racist, but they're willing to work cheaper and take our jobs". 3. "They want to keep their own culture and not integrate with ours." The third one is far less prevalent in the US than it is in Europe. I think this is for several reasons, but chief among them is that immigrants to the US do actually want to integrate into their new society, whereas immigrants to Europe generally do not. Unlike Europe, the US offers the possibility for immigrants to become as "American" as anyone else, regardless of their race or religion. Whereas immigrants to France, for example, can never become "French". This is mutually reinforcing - the French won't let them become "French", and the immigrants naturally react by not wanting to. Even if they do support liberal French cultural values without excessive judgment, which many do not, that is rarely their main reason to move there except in some political cases. The aim of immigrants to the US is not just economic prosperity, but to join the society and to be American (speaking for my own mixed Latin, Arabic and Jewish immigrant family). This leaves a situation in the US where only (1) and (2) are arguments that have any traction, and those only have traction with a backwards and racist part of the population, aka MAGA. (3) is a much more difficult question, and it would have more traction here if it were true that immigrants to the US were similar to immigrants to Europe, in only seeking economic gains and choosing to remain separate from the societal mainstream. You seem to be conflating (3) with the previous two. And maybe for some right-wing European nationalists it is. But I'm not a European white man, and myself and my Filipina partner have heard from some of those right-wing Europeans that as long as we want to learn their culture, they have no problem with us. When JD Vance goes to Europe and scorns their immigration policy, he is using #3 to their faces, but he is appealing to racist voters who claim #1 and #2 at home. Conversely, when a European tells Americans that all anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe falls into the 1 and 2 categories, you are not honestly telling them about #3. It's the same in Saudi Arabia, isn't it? You can't go get a job in an oil field and go around waving a bible and drinking bourbon. The fact that the West tolerates a lot of different beliefs and ways of life is a good thing, it adds to our diversity and that is our strength. But that tolerance for others has to also be a foundational understanding for newer arrivals who come here. And if it's not, and if they enter into open hostilities with the country that received them, then I don't think all of that can be laid at the feet of ignorant skin-color-based racism.
- orwin 1y ago
  > Whereas immigrants to France, for example, can never become "French" That's untrue. It really depends on where they arrived and their support system. If their support system isn't French, of course integration is extremely hard. I know a lot of people hosting political refugees (my mom and her friends basically), and met a lot of immigrants. I'd say the only couple that didn't integrate was hosted and worked through a Kazak support group before being contacted by cimade and moved far from Paris (tehy were white and christian, so racism and islamophobia are out). Other refugees i've met through the association integrated just fine. I must add that refugees who already have a support system in a big sity often refuse Cimade's help, so the refugees/immigrants i met had a specific profile (either single moms with child or highly educated middle-aged, most from a minority group in a violent country. Kurds and Druze, Kazaks, some russians, one Iraki from before the Irak war, some non-french speaking Africans). I guarantee you most of them became French. I agree it's the minority, but it's the minority targeted by new laws and the far right (refugees, who can't have their papers in order until Cimade take care of that and teach them french). I would agree we should do more for cultural integration for the rest of the immigrated crowd, through sport, through games, popular education in general (if you're an immigrant and your child go in youth camps with the Francas every summer, your child will end up French enough. Maybe a bit communist though, be carefull) and maybe through school, but we've dropped the ball in the 2000s, and killing the proximity police (which, while it didn't work as much as expected in big cities, worked extremely well in mid-size ones) didn't help. I understand the general sentiment, but i feel like current policies target the wrong crowd, and are ineffective in solving the actual issues.
- benterix 1y ago
  As for 3, regardless if it's true or not as it's also quite subjective, you need to also ask yourself the question whether that's really desired, or, whether the society has the moral right to ask that. Think about Jews during the ages - they survived, their culture survived in exile thanks to that. In an ideal world, the majority would just appreciate the variety, in the actual world the minority will always suffer by just being different, though. (Grave incompatibilities aside, such as underage marriages and other ways of harming people.)
spwa4 1y ago
> People that don’t look “right” should seriously consider if this is the right place Doesn't really matter. Look at birthrates. People that don't exist won't immigrate to Germany. Germany will be begging for immigrants in a few years ... and won't get them. Or, at least, not from North Africa, and I don't really see any other place to get them. The US will keep having immigrants from South and Middle America for a bit longer but even that is going to slow down dramatically. > towns dying because the population can’t accept outsiders There also are no jobs there. The population of these towns wants lots of things done ... but won't pay for doing them. If they did, there would be no shortage of US people/Germans doing them. To be completely honest there is no longer much reason for these cities to exist. And if you're an old person enjoying your pension there, that really sucks. If you're young, you move away. Just like the rust belt.
- benterix 1y ago
  > Or, at least, not from North Africa, and I don't really see any other place to get them. I have many excellent and hard-working colleagues from India, for example. North Africa is not the only option, and just taking these people out of Africa and instantly placing in a completely different context will only create trouble. These things really need to be done properly but I guess we're past that point thanks to Merkel & co.
benterix 1y ago
> It’s much easier to say “brown people took your life away” than to face reality many small and large decisions made by the government and the people have led to the current outcome. Tangential note: While I agree, there is something missing. You basically shift the blame from one group of people to another. This might be right to a certain extent, but doesn't take into account the enormous influence of things people don't have any control over (at least not people in Germany, even collectively). In other words, it's possible (although impossible to prove as economy is not a provable science), that no matter what individual people and the government would do, Germany would be still in the current situation, or not much different, especially in the long run (short term you can print some money but will have to face consequences anyway).

noduerme 1y ago

There are several very different types of anti-immigrant sentiment in the US. They differ by region and they also differ from the feelings in Europe. 1. Basic, racist, "this person is a different skin color". 2. "We're not racist, but they're willing to work cheaper and take our jobs". 3. "They want to keep their own culture and not integrate with ours." The third one is far less prevalent in the US than it is in Europe. I think this is for several reasons, but chief among them is that immigrants to the US do actually want to integrate into their new society, whereas immigrants to Europe generally do not. Unlike Europe, the US offers the possibility for immigrants to become as "American" as anyone else, regardless of their race or religion. Whereas immigrants to France, for example, can never become "French". This is mutually reinforcing - the French won't let them become "French", and the immigrants naturally react by not wanting to. Even if they do support liberal French cultural values without excessive judgment, which many do not, that is rarely their main reason to move there except in some political cases. The aim of immigrants to the US is not just economic prosperity, but to join the society and to be American (speaking for my own mixed Latin, Arabic and Jewish immigrant family). This leaves a situation in the US where only (1) and (2) are arguments that have any traction, and those only have traction with a backwards and racist part of the population, aka MAGA. (3) is a much more difficult question, and it would have more traction here if it were true that immigrants to the US were similar to immigrants to Europe, in only seeking economic gains and choosing to remain separate from the societal mainstream. You seem to be conflating (3) with the previous two. And maybe for some right-wing European nationalists it is. But I'm not a European white man, and myself and my Filipina partner have heard from some of those right-wing Europeans that as long as we want to learn their culture, they have no problem with us. When JD Vance goes to Europe and scorns their immigration policy, he is using #3 to their faces, but he is appealing to racist voters who claim #1 and #2 at home. Conversely, when a European tells Americans that all anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe falls into the 1 and 2 categories, you are not honestly telling them about #3. It's the same in Saudi Arabia, isn't it? You can't go get a job in an oil field and go around waving a bible and drinking bourbon. The fact that the West tolerates a lot of different beliefs and ways of life is a good thing, it adds to our diversity and that is our strength. But that tolerance for others has to also be a foundational understanding for newer arrivals who come here. And if it's not, and if they enter into open hostilities with the country that received them, then I don't think all of that can be laid at the feet of ignorant skin-color-based racism.

orwin 1y ago
> Whereas immigrants to France, for example, can never become "French" That's untrue. It really depends on where they arrived and their support system. If their support system isn't French, of course integration is extremely hard. I know a lot of people hosting political refugees (my mom and her friends basically), and met a lot of immigrants. I'd say the only couple that didn't integrate was hosted and worked through a Kazak support group before being contacted by cimade and moved far from Paris (tehy were white and christian, so racism and islamophobia are out). Other refugees i've met through the association integrated just fine. I must add that refugees who already have a support system in a big sity often refuse Cimade's help, so the refugees/immigrants i met had a specific profile (either single moms with child or highly educated middle-aged, most from a minority group in a violent country. Kurds and Druze, Kazaks, some russians, one Iraki from before the Irak war, some non-french speaking Africans). I guarantee you most of them became French. I agree it's the minority, but it's the minority targeted by new laws and the far right (refugees, who can't have their papers in order until Cimade take care of that and teach them french). I would agree we should do more for cultural integration for the rest of the immigrated crowd, through sport, through games, popular education in general (if you're an immigrant and your child go in youth camps with the Francas every summer, your child will end up French enough. Maybe a bit communist though, be carefull) and maybe through school, but we've dropped the ball in the 2000s, and killing the proximity police (which, while it didn't work as much as expected in big cities, worked extremely well in mid-size ones) didn't help. I understand the general sentiment, but i feel like current policies target the wrong crowd, and are ineffective in solving the actual issues.
benterix 1y ago
As for 3, regardless if it's true or not as it's also quite subjective, you need to also ask yourself the question whether that's really desired, or, whether the society has the moral right to ask that. Think about Jews during the ages - they survived, their culture survived in exile thanks to that. In an ideal world, the majority would just appreciate the variety, in the actual world the minority will always suffer by just being different, though. (Grave incompatibilities aside, such as underage marriages and other ways of harming people.)

spwa4 1y ago

> People that don’t look “right” should seriously consider if this is the right place Doesn't really matter. Look at birthrates. People that don't exist won't immigrate to Germany. Germany will be begging for immigrants in a few years ... and won't get them. Or, at least, not from North Africa, and I don't really see any other place to get them. The US will keep having immigrants from South and Middle America for a bit longer but even that is going to slow down dramatically. > towns dying because the population can’t accept outsiders There also are no jobs there. The population of these towns wants lots of things done ... but won't pay for doing them. If they did, there would be no shortage of US people/Germans doing them. To be completely honest there is no longer much reason for these cities to exist. And if you're an old person enjoying your pension there, that really sucks. If you're young, you move away. Just like the rust belt.

benterix 1y ago
> Or, at least, not from North Africa, and I don't really see any other place to get them. I have many excellent and hard-working colleagues from India, for example. North Africa is not the only option, and just taking these people out of Africa and instantly placing in a completely different context will only create trouble. These things really need to be done properly but I guess we're past that point thanks to Merkel & co.

benterix 1y ago

> It’s much easier to say “brown people took your life away” than to face reality many small and large decisions made by the government and the people have led to the current outcome. Tangential note: While I agree, there is something missing. You basically shift the blame from one group of people to another. This might be right to a certain extent, but doesn't take into account the enormous influence of things people don't have any control over (at least not people in Germany, even collectively). In other words, it's possible (although impossible to prove as economy is not a provable science), that no matter what individual people and the government would do, Germany would be still in the current situation, or not much different, especially in the long run (short term you can print some money but will have to face consequences anyway).