Europe: Close the Borders

[Beet]

As much as Anders Douchebag is a Douchebag, I agree with him on one thing, Europe cannot handle immigration. You won't find me on the roster of the Arizona minute men, or the anti immigration policy centers, heck I am an immigrant myself. However, that's because the US so far has demonstrated an ability to deal with immigration, if not perfectly, then at least acceptably. To some extent this might have to the fact that the actual natives of the Americas have been heavily decimated.

If you're a European Leftist reading this, I know this will offend some of you. So let me be clear:

I'm a Chauvinist. I believe in American Exceptionalism. On this, We are Better than You. At least so far.

Take Greece. There are now stories that some Nazis are running around in the streets there beating up Muslims. Because they're mad over austerity. It's fine that they're mad over austerity, but if there weren't Muslims in Greece, then these guys might be doing something constructive.

Immigration is killing the European Left. Let's face it, the Left invented populism. The Left is nothing without populism except a combination of institutional inertia (from the fact that people identify with leftist parties out of habit, or leftist parties receive state money because of performance in past election), and milquetoast neoliberalism (which ends up serving the interests of bankers and markets, hence having no actual mass appeal or ability to provide an alternative to the center-right). However, when the Left is obligated by adherence to 'multi-culturalism' to embrace the Other, it therefore cuts itself off from its very lifeblood of populist politics. The man on the street does not want to embrace the growing 'other': he is threatened by him.

If it is not too late, the Left in Europe should jettison multi culturalism, and immigration, and embrace populism. Who was it who said, 'I am a Frenchman first, a socialist second'? We need people like that guy again. Socialist xenophobes may not be the best, but they're better than Nazis.

Britain may be an exception, its culture is a bit different.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

but if there weren't Muslims in Greece, then these guys might be doing something constructive.

No, they'd be beating up Jews.  Or women.  Or some other minority.

[Insula Dei]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Has it occured to you that there might exist something like actual ideology? I know the concept must appear strange when you're ruled by the DC caste, but it's a really neat concept.

[You kip if you want to...]

National Socialism?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm not sure how to start, other than to point out that the combination of 'Breivik had a point' and 'immigration is killing the European Left' is... well, actually I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself for that.

Moving on, I see that we have yet another example of Hard Headed Realism Saying Things That Must Be Said. As is usually the case when you (or, indeed, anyone else) goes into that mode, you do not have a clue about the subject on which you hold forth most manfully.

1. 'Immigration' is really not the issue, save as a euphemism. Let's say that 'Europe' (however defined) 'closed the borders' (however defined). The families who have moved to European countries over the past six decades would... er... still be here, wouldn't they? And it's the presence of darker skin tones, different names and so on that upsets the die-hard racists and (or so you seem to be arguing; it's certainly not a view that I share) are causing the 'problem' and not the abstract facts of immigration (not that most people - and no racists - know much of anyway) or masturbatory bullsh!t about our 'common cultural heritage'. So, then what? You think that these people - these fascists and their fellow travelers and useful idiots - would, at the moment of victory, stop? That they would ebb away and things would return to whatever you consider to be 'normal'? I strongly suspect that our old friend 'repatriation' would suddenly re-emerge on the agenda. Congrat-u-fycking-lations to Hard Headed Realism.

2. There is no project of 'multi-culturalism' and never has been. Only pragmatic (and often tin-eared and wrongheaded; yes, I acknowledge that) responses to the reality of social change. Mostly 'multi-culturalism' only exists as something for people to complain about. Given this, how, exactly, can we abandon it? Support the repeal of anti-discrimination legislation (mostly written by politicians from our side in the first place), perhaps? Nothing else comes to mind I'm afraid (because we do all that pearl-clutching stuff about 'common values' already), so it's acquiesce to racism or nothing. And do you think that would satisfy the fascists? Hah.

3. Your understanding of the electoral appeal (and so of the present electoral problems) of the various social democratic parties is... mmm... less than great.

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

And now for an interesting fact. You are, essentially, advocating that the various social democratic (and presumably hard left, where significant) parties of Europe adopt the same approach to these issues as the PCF did under Georges Marchais in the 1980s. Can I just point out that that did not end well?

I should make it clear that I'm not dismissing the importance of immigration and it's long-term consequences as political issues and, yes, as political problems. How do we deal with the problem of integration (which is always a two-way process), the problems caused by different attitudes to certain things, the problems caused by the unfortunate fact that the social standing and economic security of significant parts of the working class (and much of the traditional lower-middle class, actually) has deteriorated sharply over the past three decades (and so which dovetails much of this, meaning that there's often a perception of immigration-as-the-cause even if that's not really true; immigrants weren't to blame for the housing crisis in Becontree, but were blamed anyway), what to do about people that want to kill immigrants (and us), and so on and so forth. All legitimate topics for debate. Pity that you decided to be a controversialist instead.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Even if I accepted the premise that the left 'created' populism - the right has been far more effective at harnessing it.

I can see your starting point... and your end-point - but the logic journey between them is very wrong.

I don't think it has anything to do with actual immigration - 'Europe cannot handle immigration' - rubbish - there are some Europeans who cannot handle immigration, and of course let's be plain it's not all immigration - it's immigration of a particular religion...

Now, I'm all for acceptance and tolerance of other practices of other religions, but when a religion or culture clash against the law of the land, - the law should win.

But that really isn't the point - the impacts of frankly ridiculous burqa laws - will be completely disproportionate to their implementation. For example, the most recent law in Belgium passed with only one MP voting against it - it will impact 450 women - 2% of the total population of Muslim women in Belgium ... now I don't like the Burqa and what I feel it represents - but to make it flat-out illegal, based on paranoia is utterly stupid.

So the solution you seem to be suggesting is that rather than trying to compete with these uninformed fools and paranoids, the left should buddy up with them and screw over the massive majority of immigrants who have come to Europe and contributed greatly.

Bugger that...

[Boris]

immigration- CLOSE THE BOARDS

[Beet]

I'm not sure how to start, other than to point out that the combination of 'Breivik had a point' and 'immigration is killing the European Left' is... well, actually I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself for that.

Moving on, I see that we have yet another example of Hard Headed Realism Saying Things That Must Be Said. As is usually the case when you (or, indeed, anyone else) goes into that mode, you do not have a clue about the subject on which you hold forth most manfully.

1. 'Immigration' is really not the issue, save as a euphemism. Let's say that 'Europe' (however defined) 'closed the borders' (however defined). The families who have moved to European countries over the past six decades would... er... still be here, wouldn't they? And it's the presence of darker skin tones, different names and so on that upsets the die-hard racists and (or so you seem to be arguing; it's certainly not a view that I share) are causing the 'problem' and not the abstract facts of immigration (not that most people - and no racists - know much of anyway) or masturbatory bullsh!t about our 'common cultural heritage'. So, then what? You think that these people - these fascists and their fellow travelers and useful idiots - would, at the moment of victory, stop? That they would ebb away and things would return to whatever you consider to be 'normal'? I strongly suspect that our old friend 'repatriation' would suddenly re-emerge on the agenda. Congrat-u-fycking-lations to Hard Headed Realism.

I agree that immigration is not the issue. It should be obvious that I have no problem with immigration; I am rather apathetic about the subject, although I agree that for those who are interested, there are a diverse and complex set of policy challenges to discuss.  No, I do not support the repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. Yes, I believe that my proposals are aimed at protecting the darker skinned immigrants who have already come to Europe. The weaker the far right is, the more likely their rights and safety can be protected.

So to be clear, immigration is not really the issue here; the rise of the far right is the issue. Except that I have identified the cause, tentatively, as immigration.

You seem to be seeing the far right as a fixed entity of fixed numbers, whose issues have fixed resonance, the only difference being whether the debate is immigration or repatriation. I agree that the leaders and hard core followers of the far right would demand repatriation if they could, and that they would not be satisfied merely with a halt on immigration.

Where we differ is that what I am concerned about is not the existence of a few nutjobs, but the trend of their increasing support across political parties in Europe. I suspect that support for their positions is even higher, possibly much higher, than the number of votes they actually get, because many Europeans don't like to vote for fascists. But they are riding this issue to greater success, proportionate with the numbers of immigrants that are coming into their countries.

In other words, the issue is not whether they are satisfied, but how powerful they are, how resonant their issue is. Because if you cut off the resonance of their issues, you will cap their appeal. If immigrants continue to stream into these countries, their appeal will only continue to grow with each passing year, until something truly ugly emerges.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since you think that immigration is not the cause of the far right in Europe, may I please ask you what you think the cause is, and how it can be reversed?

-----

Hungary may be a counter point to my thesis. But even so, it's still about populism, even there.

[Lief 🗽]

Have you read this recent NYT op-ed, Beet? I think you'd agree with a lot of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/tuning-out-the-democrats.html

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Can Beet think in any terms besides knee-jerk reactions and chronic anxiety?

[Beet]

Have you read this recent NYT op-ed, Beet? I think you'd agree with a lot of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/tuning-out-the-democrats.html

Yes, I do, thank you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, I haven't even posted about the 10,000 millisieverts an hour found at Fukushima.

[Lief 🗽]

In Beet's defense, if you're not chronically anxious then you're obviously not paying attention. The world is going to shít, and it's becoming increasingly clear that there's very little we can do (or, more accurately, that governments are willing to do) to prevent this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I agree that immigration is not the issue. It should be obvious that I have no problem with immigration; I am rather apathetic about the subject, although I agree that for those who are interested, there are a diverse and complex set of policy challenges to discuss.  No, I do not support the repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. Yes, I believe that my proposals are aimed at protecting the darker skinned immigrants who have already come to Europe. The weaker the far right is, the more likely their rights and safety can be protected.

1. You admit that 'immigration is not the issue' yet your main argument is/was 'close the borders', and your post made repeated references to immigration as the issue. Right.

2. Of course you don't support the repeal of anti-discrimination laws. But here's the thing; there is literally no other way for the mainstream left to abandon 'multi-culturalism' and adopt the 'populism' that you think would be such a clever idea. Certainly nothing that any serious racists would take at all seriously (not that even what you argue for would be enough, of course). I would rather that we didn't attempt to emulate the brilliant success of Georges Marchais, and not just on moral grounds.

3. If you think that minority groups would be protected by the banning of immigration... I really don't know what to say.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why must there be a single cause and why must this cause be seen as the key to understanding all aspects of the problem?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Am I? I don't think I'm really thinking in terms of numbers at all.

If 'Europe' were somehow able to 'close the borders' (which wouldn't be possible even if you wanted to, actually. Not without adopting murder as E.U/government policy), then the pressure from the people that you seem to think that we ought to surrender to would not go away. They would have been vindicated, they would be victorious, they would most likely control public discourse on the issue. Why would they stop at the banning of immigration when the issue for them isn't really immigration but the presence of names, faces and customs that they don't like? If not 'repatriation', then discrimination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty sure that that's not exactly true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you base these assertions on?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why must there be a single cause? Why, even if there was just a single cause, must we surrender to the fascists on the only issue that matters to them? Your arguments don't make sense.

[Gustaf]

Europe can't handle (well, have enormous trouble handling, at least) immigration for a couple of reasons. One is that a lot of us have set up institutions in the labour market that makes it very hard to get a job with low productivity. Immigrants have lower productivity on average because they lack culture-specific human capital. When they don't get jobs they lag further behind. Then all of that stuff gets passed down generations (horrifically enough) due to a myriad of reasons.

Another, more subtle, reason is that most European countries are built up as, ideologically, rather nasty ethnically and culturally homogenous entities. The US can handle immigration, since it's a nation of immigrants. Most European countries aren't, at least not in their self-image. That realization is slowly setting in. Many of the things that my parents and people in their generation consider essentially Swedish have little to no resonance with all the immigrant kids in my generation. Thus, Swedishness is being redefined. But that process might be helped by a little assertiveness from the political leadership.

I do think Beet has a point in that immigration is a big problem for the European left. For more than one reason. It's a large part of why they've been losing elections in countries like Denmark and France, at least.

[afleitch]

I do think Beet has a point in that immigration is a big problem for the European left. For more than one reason. It's a large part of why they've been losing elections in countries like Denmark and France, at least.

True, and it's not going unnoticed. One of the most interesting flutterings amongst the British (Labour) left post 2010 is 'Blue Labour' which is so intriguing it almost deserves its own thread.

[minionofmidas]

Our borders are closed (except for loophole exceptions a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and i, with exceptions-to-these-exceptions aa, ab, ac etc ad infinitum, many of them functioning on bureaucratic whim). That is the problem. Why do you think immigration to "Europe" from outside of Eastern Europe (and it's not as if Eastern European immigration were unproblematic, difference in skin tones or not) is typically less high skilled than immigration from the same countries to America? Because those people who have a choice prefer to go to America or Canada where borders are opener.

[Gustaf]

Our borders are closed (except for loophole exceptions a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and i, with exceptions-to-these-exceptions aa, ab, ac etc ad infinitum, many of them functioning on bureaucratic whim). That is the problem. Why do you think immigration to "Europe" from outside of Eastern Europe (and it's not as if Eastern European immigration were unproblematic, difference in skin tones or not) is typically less high skilled than immigration from the same countries to America? Because those people who have a choice prefer to go to America or Canada where borders are opener.

Oh, right, there I basically don't know enough about how it works in each individual country, so I left that out.

I'll give you an anecdote. Swedish woman, friend of my parents, meets a foreigner. They decide to settle in Sweden. He's an engineer of some kind and gets a job at Ericsson. But then migration authorities step in - he has to take a course in Swedish before he's allowed to get residence and a job. The company says it's fine - it's an international work place and English os the offiec language anyway. But the authorities insist. So the company says, fine, we'll give him a Swedish course at work which he can do parallell to working here. But the authorities again say no - he must take their course. So they end up not settling in Sweden - to much hassle.

It used to be in Swede nthat you had to prove that you weren't going to work to be allowed to enter the country. We didn't want foreigner stealing the jobs. Wasn't ideal for creating a vibrant immigrant community, of course. The Swedish for Foreigners courses that are mandatory and state-run are infamous for their focus on how to apply for welfare checks. And so on.

[minionofmidas]

Oh, right, there I basically don't know enough about how it works in each individual country, so I left that out.

I hadn't actually read your post.
It's one of the thread's better ones, though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Europe can't handle (well, have enormous trouble handling, at least) immigration for a couple of reasons. One is that a lot of us have set up institutions in the labour market that makes it very hard to get a job with low productivity. Immigrants have lower productivity on average because they lack culture-specific human capital. When they don't get jobs they lag further behind. Then all of that stuff gets passed down generations (horrifically enough) due to a myriad of reasons.

There's also the fact that - in Britain at least - a lot of the jobs they moved here to do have now gone. The reason why there are so many families from Kashmir in the West Riding and parts of Lancashire is because they were wanted to do the nastier jobs in the textile industry, the reason why so many immigrants (from just about everywhere ) moved to Birmingham was because of the motor and engineering industries and so on. Yeah, well, good luck with that these days. In 2001 the employment rate in Aston (inner city district - former inner city manufacturing district - in Birmingham with a huge 'immigrant' population) was 40%. This sort of thing is a serious problem; but I would argue that it is no longer (if it ever was) a sub-problem of immigration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No real disagreement there, though I'd note that the U.S isn't quite so good at dealing with immigration as American liberals like to point out; it deals with certain groups very well, far better than we do, yes. But (despite his name) Joe Arpaio is not a fictional character.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, it's an issue; one of many. But the solution is not to adopt a hard-right stance on either immigration or 'immigration'. Not just because doing so would be wrong, but because, frankly, who would believe us anyway?

Also Georges Marchais.

[republicanism]

Europe cannot handle immigration.

Mass immigration can't be 'handled' in a way that no problems arise from it. That is, to a degree, unavoidable.
And the problems that exist and that can't be denied are - of course - almost entirely poverty-related. Not different from the problems of Irish mass immigration in the US in the 19th century, or the immigration of East European Jews to Germany in the early 20th century. There are always the same poverty-related problems, and there is always a racist reaction, and sometimes racist hysteria, from parts of the 'native' population.
As I said, almost unavoidably, at least in the capitalist society we live in.

The real problem with immigration today is that thousands of Africans drown in the Mediterranean every year. That is what Europa is unable unwilling to handle.
And that is the disgrace todays Europeans will have to explain to their grandchildren some day.

Given that, the fact that sometimes, in very few certain areas, a few people may get a beating from a gang of testosterone-driven Turkish boys is a marginal side note of history.

[Gustaf]

Europe can't handle (well, have enormous trouble handling, at least) immigration for a couple of reasons. One is that a lot of us have set up institutions in the labour market that makes it very hard to get a job with low productivity. Immigrants have lower productivity on average because they lack culture-specific human capital. When they don't get jobs they lag further behind. Then all of that stuff gets passed down generations (horrifically enough) due to a myriad of reasons.

There's also the fact that - in Britain at least - a lot of the jobs they moved here to do have now gone. The reason why there are so many families from Kashmir in the West Riding and parts of Lancashire is because they were wanted to do the nastier jobs in the textile industry, the reason why so many immigrants (from just about everywhere ) moved to Birmingham was because of the motor and engineering industries and so on. Yeah, well, good luck with that these days. In 2001 the employment rate in Aston (inner city district - former inner city manufacturing district - in Birmingham with a huge 'immigrant' population) was 40%. This sort of thing is a serious problem; but I would argue that it is no longer (if it ever was) a sub-problem of immigration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No real disagreement there, though I'd note that the U.S isn't quite so good at dealing with immigration as American liberals like to point out; it deals with certain groups very well, far better than we do, yes. But (despite his name) Joe Arpaio is not a fictional character.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, it's an issue; one of many. But the solution is not to adopt a hard-right stance on either immigration or 'immigration'. Not just because doing so would be wrong, but because, frankly, who would believe us anyway?

Also Georges Marchais.

Regarding your first paragraph, yeah, but, as you say, that's not an immigration problem. That's a working class problem (specifically a working class male problem). Incidentally, it's probably an even more important explanation for the rise of the "far-right" movement in Europe. In Sweden those immigrants were largely from Yugoslavia. But I'd say the problem you're describing is hitting "original natives" about as hard as those old immigrants.

That racist sheriff in Arizona? I don't know much more than the preceding sentence, I'm afraid. But I see your point.

I agree that a hard-right position is not a good idea. The question is of course what a hard-right position is. I suspect the current position of the left, which largely consists of sticking its head in the sand and occassionally yell racism is also a pretty poor choice. Admitting certain problems while making clear that the solution is not to close the borders or kick anyone out might go some way to dealing with it.

Just to give examples of what I mean, when I discussed immigration with left-wing friends in Sweden many have denied that immigrants could have lower productivity than native Swedes. They maintained that the only reason they had higher unemployment was discrimination. Many people also deny that crime rates are higher among certain immigration groups (not claim that the causes are not ethnic or anything, but actually denying the statistics of it). And so on. I think the key problem is really that the European left tends to aproach immigration issues as a problem of appearing to be racist, rather than a real problem.

For example, many left-wingers, when confronted with statistics on high crime-rates among immigrants seem to think that they have solved the problem if the prove that these higher rates can be explained by socio-economic differrences. But from the point of view of crime victims that isn't a solution at all. Someone offering a solution, even if it's bad and worryingly racist, will always be gaining ground against that.

Taking the issues seriously and focusing on coming up with non-racist solutions to them would not only be morally superior (in my opinion) but also tactically advantageous. It'd obviously be morally preferable not to give various hate-groups any understanding or credit in that process though.

[Gustaf]

Oh, right, there I basically don't know enough about how it works in each individual country, so I left that out.

I hadn't actually read your post.
It's one of the thread's better ones, though.

After I posted I read your post again and couldn't for my life understand why I thought it was directed at me. I figured it was too late anyway.

[minionofmidas]

The real problem with immigration today is that thousands of Africans drown in the Mediterranean every year. That is what Europa is unable unwilling to handle.
And that is the disgrace todays Europeans will have to explain to their grandchildren some day.

Yes. This.

Not only because it's wrong, btw.

[Gustaf]

Europe cannot handle immigration.

Mass immigration can't be 'handled' in a way that no problems arise from it. That is, to a degree, unavoidable.
And the problems that exist and that can't be denied are - of course - almost entirely poverty-related. Not different from the problems of Irish mass immigration in the US in the 19th century, or the immigration of East European Jews to Germany in the early 20th century. There are always the same poverty-related problems, and there is always a racist reaction, and sometimes racist hysteria, from parts of the 'native' population.
As I said, almost unavoidably, at least in the capitalist society we live in.

The real problem with immigration today is that thousands of Africans drown in the Mediterranean every year. That is what Europa is unable unwilling to handle.
And that is the disgrace todays Europeans will have to explain to their grandchildren some day.

Given that, the fact that sometimes, in very few certain areas, a few people may get a beating from a gang of testosterone-driven Turkish boys is a marginal side note of history.

I'm not entirely sure what your policy-prescription here is? (and I'll note that I think things would be a lot worse without the capitalism you seem to abhor).

I agree that it's very sad that people lose their lives trying to create better lives for themselves. And it's disgusting that we have parties like Lega Nord actually advocating killing those people trying to get in. But what's your solution to that?

[republicanism]

I'm not entirely sure what your policy-prescription here is? (and I'll note that I think things would be a lot worse without the capitalism you seem to abhor).

I'm aware that this is not a very inventive idea, but basically to fight poverty and inequality. And particularly to focus the political debate on that, instead on side issues like the burqa or illegal immigrants or stuff like that.

And by the way I don't 'abhor' capitalism, but I don't affirm it either.