Dutch elections

[Josquius]

Mass migration is a real issue that affects people.

Mass migration isn't a thing.
People think its a real and serious issue as its an excellent scapegoat for the real problems in modern Europe.

[Sheilbh]

Very unlikely to survive at this point, thanks to Mélenchon, and the war in Gaza.

Yes. His no show at the march against anti-semitism (attended by everyone else) was pretty outrageous. Not surprising but there we are.

There will be a question of the extent to which the centre left (Green/PS types) are willing to hold their nose.

I'd say otherwise. We've talked about it endlessly- this was clearly the wrong approach, to just see the immigration as the core problem that had people unsettled, rather than actually focussing on the real issues that affect people's day to day.

Mass migration is a real issue that affects people.

Which drags out the centrist ideologue in me

Because I think both of these are right. I don't think in a Europe where we've had twenty plus years of Wilders, Fortuyn, Le Pen, Lega, Farage - and accommodation with that from hijab bans to Merkel's "multiculturalism has failed", that we can realistically say that we have failed to talk about it.

On the other hand I think Britain's a demonstration here where we have a government routinely derided as hard-right, with record levels of immigration and population growth at its highest level in 60+ years - combined with record low home building and decades of low investment. Those two will clash at some point.

I don't think talking more will help and I'm not particularly interested in pathologising what's causing it. And as someone on the left this would perhaps inevitably be my solution, but I think we need large scale public investment, particularly home building in the UK, but more broadly in the public realm, in public services etc.

I think just continuing to talk about and "acknowledge legitimate concerns" while not either: reducing immigration or increasing investment will just lead to further radicalisation to the hard right. Similarly I think not wanting to talk about it and using trite language about "we've always been a migration society - look at the Vikings" and not acknowledging there is a cultural change is also doomed. Here I actually weirdly think Gareth Southgate's work with the England team is a possible model

[Admiral Yi]

Mass migration isn't a thing.
People think its a real and serious issue as its an excellent scapegoat for the real problems in modern Europe.

Who gets to decide which are the real and serious issues?

[Josquius]

[quote author=Josquius link=msg=1428792 date=1703002451
Mass migration isn't a thing.
People think its a real and serious issue as its an excellent scapegoat for the real problems in modern Europe.

Who gets to decide which are the real and serious issues?
[/quote]

Extensive research and analysis.

[Barrister]

[quote author=Josquius link=msg=1428792 date=1703002451
Mass migration isn't a thing.
People think its a real and serious issue as its an excellent scapegoat for the real problems in modern Europe.

Who gets to decide which are the real and serious issues?

Extensive research and analysis.
[/quote]

I think you have to do better than that.

Now look - I'll agree that "mass migration" is a kind of dog whistle, that it dovetails with "replacement theory" which is BS.

But it is absolutely 100% legitimate to discuss immigration and refugee policies, and to have a discussion about immigration levels in a given country.

Of course part of that conversation is also that

A: we in "the West" have been having below-replacement fertility levels for awhile now, and immigration is somewhat required.
B: we can't ignore why people in the global south are so poor they risk their lives to come into our countries

Really, I just want us to be able to have a frank discussion about immigration that doesn't devolve into either proponents of immigration accusing the other side of being racists, or opponents of immigration being racists.

[crazy canuck]

What is mass immigration?

[Josquius]

uote author=Josquius link=msg=1428797

Extensive research and analysis.
[/quot

I think you have to do better than that.

Now look - I'll agree that "mass migration" is a kind of dog whistle, that it dovetails with "replacement theory" which is BS.

But it is absolutely 100% legitimate to discuss immigration and refugee policies, and to have a discussion about immigration levels in a given country.

Of course part of that conversation is also that

A: we in "the West" have been having below-replacement fertility levels for awhile now, and immigration is somewhat required.
B: we can't ignore why people in the global south are so poor they risk their lives to come into our countries

Really, I just want us to be able to have a frank discussion about immigration that doesn't devolve into either proponents of immigration accusing the other side of being racists, or opponents of immigration being racists.

Of course. You can't not have an immigration policy.
But this "you can't even talk about immigration without being called a racist" thing is itself such a dog whistle. It gels nicely with the far rights raging desire for victim status.
The truth in modern politics is more often the opposite. It's hard not to talk about immigration even when evidence points a different direction.
We've been allowing the populist right to dictate the agenda way too long.

[DGuller]

Who gets to decide which are the real and serious issues?

Extensive research and analysis.

Seems like a great way to have regular citizens who are not part of this extensive research and analysis committee feel disenfranchised.  Who cares what you think are real and serious issues, we have extensive research and analysis to tell you what the real and serious issues are.

Democracy gives power to the people not because the people are the greatest decision-makers, but rather because when people are subjected to power and its decisions without being allowed a say in it, resentment builds.

[Sheilbh]

A: we in "the West" have been having below-replacement fertility levels for awhile now, and immigration is somewhat required.
B: we can't ignore why people in the global south are so poor they risk their lives to come into our countries

Although this varies by country but for the UK and, I'd imagine, Canada immigration is mainly from, for want of a better phrase, the global middle class. It's people on work and study visas from China, India, Nigeria, Philippines etc.

I think that is a little different in a lot of Europe. Still many students, but far more family reunification and humanitarian migrants, far fewer for work.

The poorest are most often trapped in or near their homes. This is even true with refugees - the ones who are able to try and get to Europe or North America (and who can pay the fees required) are often not the poorest (or necessarily the most vulnerable). In respect of refugees it's why I think it's really important to try and re-vivify UN processes to actually make sure the most in need are settled first not just the young, able bodied and often middle class (from within their own societies).

Obviously the world's leading host of refugees are, I believe, Turkiye and Iran, Colombia hosts millions, as do, say, Sudan and South Sudan (mainly internally displaced but recently Sudanese are fleeing to South Sudan!). Looking at desperation in the global south, it is something still primarily felt in the global south.

[Barrister]

A: we in "the West" have been having below-replacement fertility levels for awhile now, and immigration is somewhat required.
B: we can't ignore why people in the global south are so poor they risk their lives to come into our countries

Although this varies by country but for the UK and, I'd imagine, Canada immigration is mainly from, for want of a better phrase, the global middle class. It's people on work and study visas from China, India, Nigeria, Philippines etc.

I think that is a little different in a lot of Europe. Still many students, but far more family reunification and humanitarian migrants, far fewer for work.

The poorest are most often trapped in or near their homes. This is even true with refugees - the ones who are able to try and get to Europe or North America (and who can pay the fees required) are often not the poorest (or necessarily the most vulnerable). In respect of refugees it's why I think it's really important to try and re-vivify UN processes to actually make sure the most in need are settled first not just the young, able bodied and often middle class (from within their own societies).

Obviously the world's leading host of refugees are, I believe, Turkiye and Iran, Colombia hosts millions, as do, say, Sudan and South Sudan (mainly internally displaced but recently Sudanese are fleeing to South Sudan!). Looking at desperation in the global south, it is something still primarily felt in the global south.

No absolutely.  Canada and UK are very much geographically isolated from the "global south", so we do not have the pressures that places like southern Europe or even the US have in terms of refugees.  A lot of our immigration is coming from India, China, Phillippines, etc.

[crazy canuck]

A: we in "the West" have been having below-replacement fertility levels for awhile now, and immigration is somewhat required.
B: we can't ignore why people in the global south are so poor they risk their lives to come into our countries

Although this varies by country but for the UK and, I'd imagine, Canada immigration is mainly from, for want of a better phrase, the global middle class. It's people on work and study visas from China, India, Nigeria, Philippines etc.

I think that is a little different in a lot of Europe. Still many students, but far more family reunification and humanitarian migrants, far fewer for work.

The poorest are most often trapped in or near their homes. This is even true with refugees - the ones who are able to try and get to Europe or North America (and who can pay the fees required) are often not the poorest (or necessarily the most vulnerable). In respect of refugees it's why I think it's really important to try and re-vivify UN processes to actually make sure the most in need are settled first not just the young, able bodied and often middle class (from within their own societies).

Obviously the world's leading host of refugees are, I believe, Turkiye and Iran, Colombia hosts millions, as do, say, Sudan and South Sudan (mainly internally displaced but recently Sudanese are fleeing to South Sudan!). Looking at desperation in the global south, it is something still primarily felt in the global south.

That is the perception of what is happening in Canada.  But not reality.  A while back in the Canadian politics thread  I linked a detailed examination the Globe did on Canadian Immigration.  The upshot was that it is not fulfilling its objectives because we are not in fact attracting mainly students eagers and willing to make a life here.  We are mainly getting their families - ie parents and grandparents.  And so your demographics are not getting younger, our workforce is not expanding as anticipated and our social costs are increasing without the benefit of the first two factors helping to pay for the increase.

[Sheilbh]

I thought it said that the "economic class" visas were still over half of residents family reunification/dependents were about 1/3. Not as tilted as the UK (which is about 2/3 students and workers). But still mainly "economic" in one way or another.

But the contrast with Europe is that in much of Europe you need to flip those numbers. For example, in France I think over half of migrants are family reunification or humanitarian resettlement.

[crazy canuck]

I thought it said that the "economic class" visas were still over half of residents family reunification/dependents were about 1/3. Not as tilted as the UK (which is about 2/3 students and workers). But still mainly "economic" in one way or another.

But the contrast with Europe is that in much of Europe you need to flip those numbers. For example, in France I think over half of migrants are family reunification or humanitarian resettlement.

You have a good memory.

This is the bit I think you are talking about:

That is not the only catch. Many working-age immigrants arrive in Canada with dependent children and spouses who do not work, and are often joined later by retired family members and parents. For example, while about 253,000 of the 406,000 permanent residents Canada accepted in 2021 were admitted in the economic-class category, about one-third of the total were spouses or dependents, according to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Another 81,000 permanent residents entered Canada in 2021 under family reunification programs.

"If you were really serious [about lowering the dependency ratio] you wouldn't allow any parents and grandparents to come in," Mr. Griffith says. "The demographic arguments for higher immigration don't really hold water or are vastly overstated."

[Sheilbh]

That's it - though in the UK family reunification is a function of human rights and the rights to a family life. It's possible to change but that's one of the clauses of ECHR that has been developed by British judges in a really quite expansive way - it may be something for parliament to look at (though I'm not sure - feels like it would undermine the offer). It has certainly come under criticism.

Although the UK is even more tilted to work (around 325,000) and study (around 375,000) v family (70,000) and humanitarian routes (165,000). Those are the net figures to June 2023 and don't include EU or Brits, which are even more work and study tilted (but net emigration for the EU and for the Brits).

Not sure it's possible for immigration alone to reduce dependency, or if it's desirable to use it in that way. Instinctively it makes me think of German or Dutch "guest workers". I'd guess the bigger (but more expensive) piece is making it more affordable and attractive to have a family for everyone in the country.

By comparison this is France (and I don't think this is uncommon in much of Europe) - still lots of students but work is a far smaller proportion (and only recently growing) and family reunification far larger:


Similarly I think the latest stats on the Netherlands had family reunification running at about double the number of work visas - or about the same as work and study put together. So again over 50% of the total are refugees and family reunification (of the 40% that is non-EU/free movement).

I think that the approach in Europe may be better ethically, but I think it might make integration and building political support more challenging - which needs balancing.

[Josquius]

Who gets to decide which are the real and serious issues?

Extensive research and analysis.

Seems like a great way to have regular citizens who are not part of this extensive research and analysis committee feel disenfranchised.  Who cares what you think are real and serious issues, we have extensive research and analysis to tell you what the real and serious issues are.

Democracy gives power to the people not because the people are the greatest decision-makers, but rather because when people are subjected to power and its decisions without being allowed a say in it, resentment builds.

Its a balance. But I do think the smart answer is weighted a bit more towards technocrat side of the scale than the populist one. Its the way our democracy is fundamentally meant to work- we elect people who have time and teams of professionals to get a better understanding of the way the world works than anyone with a 9 to 5 and other commitments could ever get.

You obviously don't tell people you're not going to take what they say at face value. When they're screaming they can't get a doctors appointment because of all the immigrants you nod along and make all the right noises and record everything they said...but then you take that away and cross reference it with other data and see that the problems they're having getting a doctors appointment would be best tackled by investment in the health system rather than any sort of anti immigrant grandstanding.

There's the famous but sadly apocryphal Henry Ford quote "If I asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses". You don't completely ignore what people want. But you do use expertise to figure out the core problem and a real solution rather than what they think is the solution.