German Federal Election 23rd February 2025

[dist]

If there's a rise in bigotry among the population - or of non-bigoted concerns that can be leveraged by bigots - to such a degree that it drives politics in a democracies, I'd rather that be incorporated and dealt with democratically than that it becomes a tool for Fascists to overthrow democracy.

Isn't that what happened in Denmark where the main parties successfully incorporated tougher stances on immigration and thus managed to maintain the far-right at bay?

[Jacob]

I'd suggest one's state is pretty shitty if those are the only two options. Sacrifice some to save the many?

We do seem to be trending in a pretty shitty direction, yeah.

But I guess there are two other directions:

3) Stand tall against the tide of Fascism and beat it back while remaining true to our principles.

It's obviously preferable, but if it's not working then it's IMO worthwhile reexamining the strategy... even if the conclusion is to double down.

What do you think we should do?

[Jacob]

Isn't that what happened in Denmark where the main parties successfully incorporated tougher stances on immigration and thus managed to maintain the far-right at bay?

Yes. And I hated it.

But so far it seems to have worked, and the far right is fairly splintered at the moment. Anti-immigration sentiment is not a galvanizing issue to overthrow the political order, as I understand the politics of Denmark at the moment. It's still an issue, but just one of several.

[Valmy]

I'd suggest one's state is pretty shitty if those are the only two options. Sacrifice some to save the many?

We do seem to be trending in a pretty shitty direction, yeah.

But I guess there are two other directions:

3) Stand tall against the tide of Fascism and beat it back while remaining true to our principles.

It's obviously preferable, but if it's not working then it's IMO worthwhile reexamining the strategy... even if the conclusion is to double down.

What do you think we should do?

Ok what is the principle involved? I figured that the reason we support immigration is because it is good for the country. Bring in more workers and enrich the country with new cultural influences. But if immigration becomes bad for the country, it empowers far right political forces or suppresses wages or whatever, then immigration should be limited. Right? Or is there some reason immigration should be embraced regardless of whether or not it is otherwise good for the country? Like the principle of the free movement of labor?

[crazy canuck]

Immigration isn't an all or nothing proposition. No modern nation state has had open borders allowing anyone to immigrate.  The question is what restrictions are appropriate.

Canada is a good example of a country that had reasonable restrictions but had blinders to the abuses that were occurring (student visas for people who were not actually attending classes, leading to citizenship).

[Zanza]

Trends since the official dissolution of parliament in mid December.



There is a cut-off at 5%. If you are below that, you do not get any seats in parliament. Which is obviously very interesting for BSW (Putin's fifth column), Liberals (think Musk/Milei) and Left (former communist party).

Longer term since last election:

[Barrister]

It's also unfair I think, to frame anti-immigration as racism. If Swedes were racists the fascist parties would have become big in the 80ies and 90ies. They didn't become big until immigration became a financial issue.

That's what we've seen in Canada.  There was a partisan consensus for many years that immigration was good for Canada.  The only party that was anti-immigrant was the very fringe PPC which has no seats.

Until it became a financial issue.  There's now the sense that allowing 500k new Canadians per year was driving up housing prices and driving down wages, and now I think all parties agree that immigration levels need to be lower.

[crazy canuck]

It's also unfair I think, to frame anti-immigration as racism. If Swedes were racists the fascist parties would have become big in the 80ies and 90ies. They didn't become big until immigration became a financial issue.

That's what we've seen in Canada.  There was a partisan consensus for many years that immigration was good for Canada.  The only party that was anti-immigrant was the very fringe PPC which has no seats.

Until it became a financial issue.  There's now the sense that allowing 500k new Canadians per year was driving up housing prices and driving down wages, and now I think all parties agree that immigration levels need to be lower.

I don't think it is limited to the economic issue.  We still need immigration to bolster our population growth. Where Canada went wrong is the structure of our immigration system. I have pointed to the investigative journalism the Globe did in the recent past in other posts.  The problem was that we thought we had a system which reduced the age of our population, but we actually did the reverse.  Add to that the abuses with student visas, and the ground upon which the consensus was built becomes very shaky.

[Barrister]

It's also unfair I think, to frame anti-immigration as racism. If Swedes were racists the fascist parties would have become big in the 80ies and 90ies. They didn't become big until immigration became a financial issue.

That's what we've seen in Canada.  There was a partisan consensus for many years that immigration was good for Canada.  The only party that was anti-immigrant was the very fringe PPC which has no seats.

Until it became a financial issue.  There's now the sense that allowing 500k new Canadians per year was driving up housing prices and driving down wages, and now I think all parties agree that immigration levels need to be lower.

I don't think it is limited to the economic issue.  We still need immigration to bolster our population growth. Where Canada went wrong is the structure of our immigration system. I have pointed to the investigative journalism the Globe did in the recent past in other posts.  The problem was that we thought we had a system which reduced the age of our population, but we actually did the reverse.  Add to that the abuses with student visas, and the ground upon which the consensus was built becomes very shaky.

I've seen online comments that talked very positively about our points-based immigration system - and I always want to say (and sometimes do) "you know that's not how most new Canadians enter the country - it's either family reunification or on student visas".

[crazy canuck]

It's also unfair I think, to frame anti-immigration as racism. If Swedes were racists the fascist parties would have become big in the 80ies and 90ies. They didn't become big until immigration became a financial issue.

That's what we've seen in Canada.  There was a partisan consensus for many years that immigration was good for Canada.  The only party that was anti-immigrant was the very fringe PPC which has no seats.

Until it became a financial issue.  There's now the sense that allowing 500k new Canadians per year was driving up housing prices and driving down wages, and now I think all parties agree that immigration levels need to be lower.

I don't think it is limited to the economic issue.  We still need immigration to bolster our population growth. Where Canada went wrong is the structure of our immigration system. I have pointed to the investigative journalism the Globe did in the recent past in other posts.  The problem was that we thought we had a system which reduced the age of our population, but we actually did the reverse.  Add to that the abuses with student visas, and the ground upon which the consensus was built becomes very shaky.

I've seen online comments that talked very positively about our points-based immigration system - and I always want to say (and sometimes do) "you know that's not how most new Canadians enter the country - it's either family reunification or on student visas".

Yeah exactly. 

[Neil]

Family reunification sounded good and kind, but it turned out to be a bit of a disaster, didn't it? 

[crazy canuck]

Family reunification sounded good and kind, but it turned out to be a bit of a disaster, didn't it? 

I thought, and still do, that properly administered it was the correct policy.  People often think about family reunification as bringing a parent into Canada. That is helpful because it helps with childcare and support of the family unit.  But as always the devil is in the detail.  Reunification with parents became reunification with aunts and uncles.  And that is how our population rapidly aged rather than making our population younger.

[Neil]

Family reunification sounded good and kind, but it turned out to be a bit of a disaster, didn't it? 

I thought, and still do, that properly administered it was the correct policy.  People often think about family reunification as bringing a parent into Canada. That is helpful because it helps with childcare and support of the family unit.  But as always the devil is in the detail.  Reunification with parents became reunification with aunts and uncles.  And that is how our population rapidly aged rather than making our population younger.

There's an entire industry devoted to childcare.  Bringing in aging parents at enormous taxpayer expense doesn't seem to be worth it, on balance. 

[crazy canuck]

Family reunification sounded good and kind, but it turned out to be a bit of a disaster, didn't it? 

I thought, and still do, that properly administered it was the correct policy.  People often think about family reunification as bringing a parent into Canada. That is helpful because it helps with childcare and support of the family unit.  But as always the devil is in the detail.  Reunification with parents became reunification with aunts and uncles.  And that is how our population rapidly aged rather than making our population younger.

There's an entire industry devoted to childcare.  Bringing in aging parents at enormous taxpayer expense doesn't seem to be worth it, on balance. 

There is a whole inadequate and expensive industry devoted to childcare.  Bringing in parents to add a productive person to the workforce is well worth whatever costs there might be.  Also, the enormity of the cost you are talking about is more than offsets the types of government expenditures that will be required to provide subsidized daycare.

[Neil]

Family reunification sounded good and kind, but it turned out to be a bit of a disaster, didn't it? 

I thought, and still do, that properly administered it was the correct policy.  People often think about family reunification as bringing a parent into Canada. That is helpful because it helps with childcare and support of the family unit.  But as always the devil is in the detail.  Reunification with parents became reunification with aunts and uncles.  And that is how our population rapidly aged rather than making our population younger.

There's an entire industry devoted to childcare.  Bringing in aging parents at enormous taxpayer expense doesn't seem to be worth it, on balance. 

There is a whole inadequate and expensive industry devoted to childcare.  Bringing in parents to add a productive person to the workforce is well worth whatever costs there might be.  Also, the enormity of the cost you are talking about is more than offsets the types of government expenditures that will be required to provide subsidized daycare.

It might be expensive, but it's not inadequate, and subsidizing daycare isn't as expensive as the lifetime and end-of-life healthcare costs of middle-aged third worlders.