The Off Topic Topic

[garbon]

Yes, many European balls of light are more racist than one would naively expect.

So on the one hand - yes.  There is much more racism then you'd expect in Europe - or at least then you'd have expected 20 years ago.

But immigration is such a touchy issue since it goes to the very basis for the existence of many nations.

I mean it's one thing in North America - absent First Nations we're all immigrants.  It's hard to say that Canada / US needs to be a majority white country in that context.

It's also hard for European colonial powers to complain about immigration from the very nations they used to rule over.  On what basis does the UK really have to deny Indians, or people from the Caribbean, from coming to the UK?  Same for France and west Africa, or Spain and Latin America.

But a nation like Sweden, or Poland, or Germany - all were quite explicitly set up as ethno-states.  One people, one country.  So certainly on some level people should have the ability to say that they like it that way.  But then again - you get the feeling that they're much more opposed to Eritreans coming in as opposed to, say, Ukrainians.

Who said they shouldn't have a say?

[Jacob]

It is kind of notable how "immigration is to blame" has become such a go-to explanation across the West. The problems immigration is being blamed for and the type and level of immigration varies significantly from country to country, it seems, but the sentiment that it's "because of immigration being broken" seems to be universally rising.

[Barrister]

It is kind of notable how "immigration is to blame" has become such a go-to explanation across the West. The problems immigration is being blamed for and the type and level of immigration varies significantly from country to country, it seems, but the sentiment that it's "because of immigration being broken" seems to be universally rising.

So that's an observations you want to be... careful about.

I could very easily say:

It is kind of notable how "the Jews is to blame" has become such a go-to explanation across the West. The problems the Jews is being blamed for and the type and level of the Jews varies significantly from country to country, it seems, but the sentiment that it's "because of the Jews being broken" seems to be universally rising.

Which I think is both factually true, and complete anti-semitic horseshit.

I live in Canada.  Immigration rates have dramatically increased the last few years to the point where we're accepting over one million immigrants per year - in a country of 40 million.  That's about a 3% increase per year.  I think this is having a dramatic effect on several problems - most noticeably employment and housing.

And I don't think saying so is in any way racist, anti-immigrant, or for that matter anti-semitic (since I brought it up).

Immigration levels can not and should not be some kind of forbidden topic to discuss.  Of course people should be free to push back against anti-immigrant positions where it seems to be unwarranted.

[Jacob]

I don't think it is either, but my observation is still true. There's a pattern. I'm just back from Denmark, and there's a very well-entrenched "the immigrants are a problem" narrative going on.

It ranges from purely racist xenophobia for some, through specific hot-button issues for others, to carefully considered and thoughtful analysis of social problems and challenges for others.

There are similar patterns in play in Poland, in Sweden, in Germany, in France, and in Canada... and probably in other places too. Even if, as I say, the specific problem the immigrants are being linked to are different in different countries.

As for Canada - the main argument I'm hearing about sentiment turning against immigrants is the cost of housing... but the cost of housing has been increasing significantly for quite a long time. Much longer than the narrative about "Trudeau's broken immigration system" has been around. I also believe that housing costs have been increasing significantly in a number of places in the West, even where they have not had  the same levels of immigration (and where anti-immigrant rhetoric is focused on other things).

I'm not saying we can't improve our immigration system and quotas and whatnot. And I'm not casting aspersions on any individuals (especially here on languish), but I think it's pretty clear that anti-immigrant sentiment is on significant rise as a whole in the West - as a popular sentiment and as a political direction - even if the local contexts and reasons are very different. And I think that's worth paying attention to (especially because the local contexts and reasons are different).

[Josquius]

Getting quite meta. But one thing I find weird (and annoying) is that this accepted narrative has just being built up that somehow immigration is a forbidden topic of discussion. The minute you mention it you're branded a racist...

... When in the UK and many other places it absolutely dominates the discussion way over and above how much of an issue it actually is. Especially those bloody boats.

[Norgy]

But a nation like Sweden, or Poland, or Germany - all were quite explicitly set up as ethno-states.  One people, one country.  So certainly on some level people should have the ability to say that they like it that way.  But then again - you get the feeling that they're much more opposed to Eritreans coming in as opposed to, say, Ukrainians.

I'd like to remind you that so were Greece and Italy, countries bearing the brunt of new arrivals across the Med.

And I have had my fill of Ukrainians in Norway. I'd rather have Eritreans. That's only a half-joke.
The international system through the UNRC operates with quotas. So you can get a bit of everything, but it is still national sovereignty that determines if you accept that number.

The ethno-state is a concept thought and dreamed up in a time of multi-national and -lingual empires. As a concept, it sounds great, except when you are in the Balkans.

[HVC]

I've heard a smaller, but still significant, 500k annual immigrants to Canada. The other issue being raised is temp workers, which has also risen greatly. I'm generally pro immigrant (being in a family of immigrants after all ), but those numbers are quite high, and very much concentrated in a few cities. So while, as Jacob says, the effect of home prices might be overblown I do think there is some correlation (although I blame Airbnb more).

I also think there should be country caps. While I think Canada does an admirable job of integration compared to most countries it's harder in a modern world with easy travel and easier communication. Add to that very large scale immigration and you move away from ethnic neighbourhoods to ethnic cities and I believe that slows down integration into Canadian society.

[Barrister]

Getting quite meta. But one thing I find weird (and annoying) is that this accepted narrative has just being built up that somehow immigration is a forbidden topic of discussion. The minute you mention it you're branded a racist...

I want to confirm that, in Canada, immigration levels has been a forbidden topic of conversation.  No major political party will touch it until incredibly recently (like last 18 months or so).

I think that's probably different in other countries.

[Barrister]

Add to that very large scale immigration and you move away from ethnic neighbourhoods to ethnic cities and I believe that slows down integration into Canadian society.

It's kind of funny - if you come out to western Canada back in the first era of "mass migration" you had entire towns being built on ethnic lines.  You would have English towns, French towns, Ukrainian towns, German towns - hell just for it's pure randomness you had Gimli, Manitoba originally built as a purely Icelandic town.

That almost certainly did not promote integration into "Canadian" society, but we got there eventually.

But yes - we're not in the era of homesteading and virtually free land, so you don't quite get different ethnic groups self-segregating into their own communities nearly as much.

[HVC]

Granted my experience is with Ontario. Take Brampton is the most obvious example. South Asians make up 65% of visible minorities, and 52% of the whole population. And this city is Ontario's third largest (top 10 in Canada I believe). What's most striking is that in 2016 they made up 13% of the city.

Difference is that in the old timey settlement days of western Canadian cultural links to the old world was hard. It took time to integrate but it was an eventuality. Don't think that can be said now for similar situations.,

[Jacob]

I'm confident Braxton will integrate quite nicely in not too long.

IMO the most effective way to integrate people is to let them do their thing while not excluding them from the mainstream of society. I see no reason why this wave of immigrants would be any different. Give it a decade or three.

[HVC]

My bad, auto correct, the city is Brampton.

[HVC]

And I agree in general, as you meet others and integrate. You can't live your whole life in a neighbourhood without interacting with other groups significantly. The experience in my family, for example. I'm less sure with a whole city (or half of one as the case may be). I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

[Sheilbh]

As we're getting meta, I'll wade in

When I was born in the mid-80s Britain had net emigration. Last year we had net immigration of about 1 million. That isn't the entire immigration story, in fact that story is normally about earlier communities: West Indians in the 40s and 50s, South Asians in the 60s and 70s. Immigration, as an issue, is talked about a lot and that shift in my lifetime from a country that exported people to one that imported people is a droning bass layer in politics. But while I think we have an "issue", I don't think we have a narrative of it.

At the best, most generous there's an adaptation of American stories: Britain is a nation of immigrants, Britain was built with immigrants (neither of which are really true and when giving examples people talk about Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans - which isn't the welcoming message they're intending to send - and, possibly, Huguenouts which is better). At the negative end it's that we're a soft touch, or they're here to steal our benefits or, as French ministers repeatedly say whenever there's a tragedy on the Channel, Britain's relatively liberal jobs market and lack of ID cards is like a black hole attracting migrants from around the world. I think we need a better story of why people are coming and what that means. The issue is present in politics but I don't think the story or narrative is - and absent a positive narrative of why people are coming to and want to come to Britain (which may involve left-wing people possibly conceding that it's not a rainy fascist hellhole) and what and who modern Britain is the negative explanations (soft-touch, benefits etc) will fill the hole.

I've said before but I think this is true of almost all of Europe. The UK has a higher foreign born share of the population than the US - or even than the US in the 1920s - and we're not even the highest in Europe. I do not think we have narratives of European immigration societies despite the fact that they are now the norm and the "ethno-state" stuff hasn't been true for literally generations - it's like interpreting America through Bewitched or the Dick Van Dyke Show (at the latest). But we don't have a new interpretive tool and we're not telling a new story about ourselves.

It's the strange dilemma - and I don't think it's unique to Britain. The people who are least comfortable saying patriotic, positive things about their country are most comfortable with the idea that of course other people would want to travel halfway round the world to live here. While the people who are ostensibly most patriotic and positive about their country are convinced that the only reason anyone could want to live here is an elaborate con and/or if they are literally being paid to endure it.

Similarly I think the reason the little boats attracts so much attention, like the southern border in the US, isn't necessarily what they say about immigration but that they are the visible symbol of a (real and perceived) collapse in state capacity. The state isn't perhaps cruelly indifferent but exactingly equal in its writ. Instead in some areas it fails (or is perceived to fail) to be felt at all, while in others it is burdensome. The governed are governed very hard, the ungoverned, unchecked. I think this also partly explains the attraction of mob style, patrimonial politics like Trump - it's a mob style bargain, the state as protection racket looking after "our people" who pay their dues. It's capricious and in the face of that seeming inequality of authority people turn to insurance.

Separately and more specifically European I wonder if the mix is important. Compared with the rest of Europe the UK is very good at integrating migrants (I say nothing about civilising the locals) - the results on education and employment and earnings look more like the US, Canada or Australia than the rest of Europe - and even on social attitudes like identity or social mixing, migrants to the UK are very well integrated. I've always wondered if part of that is that the entire debate in Europe seems framed around refugees/asylum. That also dominates the debate in the UK, but in terms of numbers migration to the UK is overwhelmingly people coming here for work and study. This creates a dilemma in immigration politics, in general people think the numbers are broadly too high but they don't want to cut the numbers in any specific category (except bankers ). And maybe the European focus has been too much on asylum and refugees and not enough on students and workers (as people with long-term prospects to stay in the country not just as "guests")? I'm not saying that would solve everything but perhaps it would help?

Edit: Also just to flag that Europe takes a fraction of the world's refugees. The people who get in Europe, generally, are the people who can afford to get here. The overwhelming majority are in Latin America (from Venezuela especially), the Middle East (especially Iran and Turkiye), Asia and Africa.  Part of the problem from a policy perspective I think is that the meaningful refugee system of countries taking refugees via the UN resettlement programs has broken down completely - in large part because Western countries, including Europe, won't take their fair share which increases the pressure on irregular routes.

[crazy canuck]

Jacob, Your argument would have more force if the immigration laws had remained the same overtime and it was just the perception of immigration that has changed.  However, under this Federal government government immigration laws have changed dramatically, and that is why I think most Canadians are becoming concerned about the issue.