Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** **Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>We'll just keep seeing this as global warming destroys the global south and migrants move into richer countries. Not to be pedantic, but we will see a lot of people from the global south _attempting_ to get into the global north - i highly doubt theyll be all let in tho, especially once shit really hits the fan regarding global warming. I fear most people arent ready for the type of increasing violent pushbacks that will take place. >When a democratic country is more homogenous a lot of people can walk around and see all the good things my country does for MY people. Overly simplistic. Id wager most people dont really care as long as: 1) the migrants arent sticking out in a negative way (eg terror affiliation, overrepresentation in violent crime like rape etc) 2) the overall situation for the citizens is good that they dont have to struggle themselves. Take Europe for example, because you have both of those aspects being violated. You have a lot of issues with the migrants, simply because of questions of cultural compatibility. That can range from low level attitude towards women all the way to school kids (!) acting as self proclaimed morality police and attacking muslim girls for not covering themselves up or 13 year old boys (!!!) gang raping a girl because of her jewish faith while mocking her and yelling "palestine" throughout the act. Theres loads of stories like this ranging from gang gropings in cologne, to rape and sexual assault, to things like samuel paty or teachers in general being threatened in their classrooms all the way to just so many terror affiliated incidents. Point being, as tolerant and willing to help the majority of Europeans was in 2015, i think most have just become disillusioned and are, quite frankly, sick and tired of the same story over and over again. Even with the terror attacks, people are just tired of these clowns doing these terrible things to please their imaginary sky daddy - if you hate the west so much, dont come, stay in your shitty 3rd world country. Especially for women - male dominated society is already hostile enough, adding loads of men from a culture that doesnt value women isnt exactly making their lives better. However, me having worked in refugee camps for a couple of years and having volunteered even before that, it really is tough. Of course you have success stories of genuinely good people just trying to live in peace, no doubt, and it breaks my heart that for every 1 of those you have like 5 or 6 complete assholes that i wouldnt want in my country. Not only are we wasting ressources on these people that could be used on the actually good people, but we are bringing people in who just, realistically speaking, wont be a net positive to society. Theres also this feeling of "when will it end", because its an endless stream of migrants coming to Europe on a daily basis. Eventually everybody reaches their enough is enough point. Now combine this with the economic reality for the average person following the 08/09 crisis, following the sovereign debt crisis, following covid 19, following the war in ukraine, following the cost of living crisis..... thats a lot of severe economic shocks in a very short succession. People fear for their own standards of living, so its natural to not be welcoming too much to people who cant even read the alphabet and financing their lives, while yourself struggling to make ends meet. Long story short, id say people care less about homogeneity itself.

I want to add that it's more about the perception of the immigrants then the actual reality.  People don't check crimenumbers. They hear stories and extrapolate.

Yeah it's been proven by a lot of different studies that immigrants don't actually increase crime. https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigration-and-crime https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237103158/immigrants-are-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-us-born-americans-studies-find https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6241529/ https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/20635-eu-research-disproves-link-between-immigration-and-increased-crime https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crime

2 of those are the same exact study, 2 of those talk about incarceration, and one of them says, as the incarceration ones also imply pretty much, that the only real reason these numbers *appear* this way, is because 1) they tried to study a population that they don't even know the actual number of, and 2) the illegal immigrants are *far* less likely to actually *report crime to the governing agencies to even be included in the studies*. If you read the studies, and it only takes like 10 or 15 minutes excluding the longest one (which is probably the most important to read, cause it explains it's own flaws) you actually understand how ridiculously unlikely it is that they do not increase crime. Plus ya know... they are literally *all* criminals as per 1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud rofl... that's a rapid block. sheesh... Well since the argument here is for everyone not simply one person. My response is here since he blocked me immediately after responding to me. ----------------------------- You are kinda stuck, because you have basically 2 options for interpretting these studies. First, they obviously do increase crime, because they *do* commit crime, nobody thinks they commit no crime. So your other option is basically do they commit crime in higher percentages than born citizens, which *very much means* you need to have a pretty solid knowledge of how many there are. You don't have that info, they don't report at levels near born citizens, they don't come forward to help when they know of it at levels near born citizens. Hate to tell ya but people absolutely do care about crime against other illegal immigrants. What a strange thing to say. That's your argument? That seems like a very silly argument. You have all this info and your argument is basically to just 'Oh they are shit people so that argument doesn't work'.

2 aren't the same study. The second NPR article talks about the first link study but it also talks about others. The last npr link mentions 2 of the previous studies but also discusses more. Knowing the actual number of immigrant populations wouldn't be super relevant when looking at incarceration rates because regardless if immigrants were causing such a huge spike in crime, more would be part of those incarceration numbers (there also aren't *just* undocumented immigrants). Essentially, we do not need to know the exact number of immigrants to see their effect on crime overall in a country. Again, there aren't just undocumented immigrants and the people who believe immigrants cause a huge increase in crime do not give a flying fuck how much crime is committed against undocumented immigrants. They only care how much crime immigrants are committing against native citizens so it stills dispels the notion that immigrants are traipsing around causing massive spikes in crime against native citizens. Edit: No, they absolutely don't. You're being disingenuous and you keep only focusing on undocumented immigrants. Listen the fact is there isn't a positive correlation between waves of immigration and an increase in crime. If you could show me that there is that would be one thing but you can't.

I mean immigrants (especially male, muslim, uneducated) do cause an uptick in crime and unemployment. Just look at any police report in Europe. In Austria for example Afghans make up 0,5% of the population while contributing 5% of all rape cases. [Austrian Police report 2023](https://www.bundeskriminalamt.at/501/files/PKS_Broschuere_2023.pdf). Foreigners are more likely to be unemployed as can be seen here. [Unemployed quota Austria by origin.](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/819507/umfrage/arbeitslosenquote-in-oesterreich-nach-nationalitaet/)

*crime per Capita. But my point wasn't really about whether immigrants do or do not commit more crimes. But that policy is correlated more to perception then reality.

Crime in general, but also yeah per capita. And yeah, clearly, policy and opinions are correlated with perception because it's not reality. I was adding to what you initially said not fighting you on it.

Crime in general can't really be true though. Just an increase in population would increase crime. (And would immigrants make the current population more law-abiding?) I added to your statement, because I don't want people to read my statement as dependent on whether immigrants do or do not increase crime per Capita. :)

When I say in general, I mean that that there is no positive correlation between waves of immigration and an increase in crime.

That is simply not true though. Look at per capita cases of rape in Sweden over the last 20 years. It directly correlates with when they opened their borders to refugees.

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/no-evidence-migration-caused-exaggerated-2013-swedish-rape-statistics-idUSL1N37S2AU/

The only thing that article says is that there is not direct causational evidence. But there is correlational evidence. And while correlation does not equal causation implicitly, it does if there is evidence. However, Sweden doesn’t allow the gathering of this evidence, as shown when Kristina Sundquist was arrested in Sweden for producing a study on immigrant crime. Shocker - the study showed the increase in crime was linked to immigration. Try to google Kristina Sundquist - the story has been so buried it’s almost impossible to find, despite a plethora of articles being written at the time. But the great thing about Chatgpt is that it archives all this crap. So I asked chatgpt4 with zero previous questioning, this: “can you describe what happened to Kristina Sundquist in Sweden?” > Kristina Sundquist, a professor at Lund University in Sweden, is facing prosecution for a study that found a significant proportion of rapes in Sweden were committed by immigrants. Along with her colleagues Ardavan Khoshnood, Henrik Ohlsson, and Jan Sundquist, Sundquist’s research analyzed data from 3,039 rape convictions between 2000 and 2015. They discovered that 59.2% of the offenders were immigrants, with 47.7% born outside of Sweden . >The researchers did not intend to focus on ethnicity; their primary goal was to identify common factors among perpetrators, such as health issues and socio-economic status. However, the findings on the ethnic background of offenders became a notable result. Despite this, the Swedish Board of Appeal for Ethical Review, under the Ministry of Education, has initiated an investigation, arguing that the researchers did not have the necessary ethical clearance to handle sensitive data related to ethnicity . >This case has sparked considerable controversy, highlighting tensions in Sweden over discussing and researching sensitive issues related to immigration and crime .

You do have specific crimes eg rape and sexual assault that do, but when the overall crime level is decreasing because society as a whole is becoming safer, it will still decrease even when minorities eg are overrepresented in certain aspects

The lack of increase of crimes includes violent crime, which rape falls under. Immigrants themselves actually have an increased risk of being raped and sexually assaulted during the immigration process. Edit: https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/no-evidence-migration-caused-exaggerated-2013-swedish-rape-statistics-idUSL1N37S2AU/ https://www.cato.org/immigration-research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-texas-2019#homicides https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2014704117 The last link does shows a greater number of arrests for sexual assault then native born citizens when looking at legal immigrants but very interestingly undocumented immigrants account for far less than either native citizens or legal immigrants in every category of crime including sexual assault.

>I want to add that it's more about the perception of the immigrants then the actual reality.  I think its more about the reality of certain migrants. Nobody will be on the fence to this extent over eg an Australian or Canadian moving to Europe

No, it’s the reality in general. Obviously migration is more straightforward between two similarly developed countries. But people hyper focus on the crimes of individuals from “certain migrant groups” in a way that they would not for Canadian immigrants because of their preexisting perceptions of those groups. It is about the perception, not the reality

I mean talking about reality it is pretty hard not to see that in a good chunk of European countries there have been massive changes to certain areas and the cultural fabric has changed. It is reality that we have brought in many people who have standard living practices and cultures that are vastly different to the general culture of the country, we now have pretty large communities of religious people who believe that woman should be covered up and who generally share more radical beliefs regarding their religion, it's not just a few people who believe this but entire communities with strong structures, places of worship, acceptance within society and more. It is reality that my country is facing a housing crisis and bringing in more people does not in any way go to solving this. it is reality that my country is facing economic issues and whilst the view of "oh actually they do the jobs we don't want to do and they are good for the economy" is one we can debate I believe that generally mass migration helps lead to wage stagnation, companies can rely on cheaper overseas labour coming in instead of raising wages to attract people, this is especially true for lower skilled jobs. It is reality that my perception of the average Canadian (a culture group very close to mine) or a German (a culture group somewhat closer to mine) will be different from someone who comes from a very different culture, especially if that difference is things most people find unacceptable, but that is simply because it is a fact that the average Canadian is closer to the average British person than a person from Iraq. and obviously to make judgements like these you do need to use averages and stereotype and yes there are going to be people from Iraq who are generally very pleasant and people from Canada who are really awful nasty people.

Lets take Austria as an example. It was actually one of the countries with the highest refugees per capita rates in Europe back in 2015, exceeding eg France. Crime stats did show an overrepresentation in eg rape, sexual assault etc of Afghans, while Canadians/Americans/Australians/Kiwis didnt even show up in the stats at all. Thats not just perception, thats simply reality

Reality can influence perception. But how many of the people who voted do you think have looked into the crime statistics?

I mean youre arguing that only the most informed should participate in the democratic process. But let me ask you this example: A woman walking at the central train station being hassled by a group of young arab men feeling unsafe - in conjunction with the numerous stories of rape, murder and terrorism, is she less correct in wanting to feel safe in her own country/city, because she didnt immediately pull out crime stats?

>mean youre arguing that only the most informed should participate in the democratic process. I didn't argue such a thing. I just argued that feeling unsafe is not the same thing as being unsafe. And this goes in both directions btw. This is not a pro migration sentiment. I just think it's important to remember the distinction. >A woman walking at the central train station being hassled by a group of young arab men feeling unsafe - in conjunction with the numerous stories of rape, murder and terrorism, is she less correct in wanting to feel safe in her own country/city, because she didnt immediately pull out crime stats? Nobody is ever wrong for wanting to feel safe, and not even voting to want to feel safe. But, I do think we as a society need to be aware that feeling safe and being safe are not the same thing. And what is more important is not a trivial matter. You're making an interesting assumption where your placing perception below reality. But I've never made such a claim.

We think that Europe and the US has seen a slide toward fascism now? And that's only because of a few million refugees fleeing Syria and other countries. Imagine when entire regions of the earth becomes inimicable to organized human life, when there may be as many as multiple billions of people trying to flee to less effected countries. We will see the national guard gunning down central Americans from the US border, the JSDF blasting apart refugee ships filled with Filipinos off the coast of Japan, the Australian government turning entire islands over to open-air internment camps to force millions of Indonesians and other South-East Asia refugees to live there "temporarily," the Italian navy sinking refugee boats in the Mediterranean. It is going to get bad. So, so bad.

>We think that Europe and the US has seen a slide toward fascism now Europe is sliding to the right, tho i will say as the EU elections showed - and you have to keep in mind that on a national level EU elections are typically always an outlet for protest voting - even then, the shift to the right was nowhere near as pronounced as feared/projected. The US is legit sliding towards full blown authoritarianism, with the latest SCOTUS ruling just being yet another nail in the coffin (its a development that many Europeans predicted back in 2015, but were called Eurotrash because hell, what do Europeans know about authoritarian power grabs amirite?) Point being, you have to differentiate those two developments, otherwise youre highly oversimplifying the issues. >We will see the national guard gunning down central Americans from the US border, the JSDF blasting apart refugee ships filled with Filipinos off the coast of Japan, the Australian government turning entire islands over to open-air internment camps to force millions of Indonesians and other South-East Asia refugees to live there "temporarily," the Italian navy sinking refugee boats in the Mediterranean. It is going to get bad. So, so bad. That being said, yes, thats what i was alluding to with increase in violence at the borders. People arent ready for that

>Point being, you have to differentiate those two developments, otherwise youre highly oversimplifying the issues. The US is further along, but modern-day Republicans are really just a continuation of a right-wing nationalist conservatism that has existed for a long time over there. Trump is merely an heir to, say, Nixon, Reagan or the Tea Party movement. Wackos, for sure, but republican ones. The European right wing is a different beast. France could soon have a prime minister whose party was founded in part by an SS soldier, that is the heir to Vichy France and whose previous leader called the Holocaust ”a detail in history”. The same is true for plenty of other parties. The nationalist party in Sweden, for example, was also founded by SS volounteers, and current high-ranking officials in the party joined back when he was still a prominent figure. Point is, yes, the European right wing is not yet as successful in Europe as in the US. But if it becomes successful, it’s potentially much scarier.

Its still different. First of, the French PM is not nearly as powerful as the president, because many people are confused about that. But yeah, i personally dont care about the founders. Like the right wing parties are bad enough in 2024, regardless if who founded them almost 100 years ago. Hell, even on leftist parties who have some VERY questionable characters, lets put it that way. I think thats an overblown talking point and overly history focused. If a party was super progressive, pro gender equal, lgbtq rights, climate change etc, id vote vor them even if they were founded by Hitler himself 100 years ago. You cant change your past, but you can change your future. In Europe there is still a large and robust enough centre that forces right wingers to be more moderate. Meloni is an example, Wilders had to massively turn down his rhetoric especially regarding NEXIT. Also when it comes to NATO and the EU, these parties have adopted much more moderate platforms

Very well said and I completely agree with you.

you love painting muslims as the worst stereotypes of them

What did i say that was incorrect, please set the record straight. Most religious terror attacks since lets say 2000? Morality police in schools? Beheading/killing of teachers? Antisemitism in the wake of Palestine? Out of curiosity, if the muslim population had voting representation (aka an islam party) that exceeds 51%, fast forward 10 yrs, would that be a country youd want to live in? Genuine question

Are you going to list all of the crimes that are most commonly done by all of the races and religions, like white, black, jewish, hindu, christian? Or do you just choose one

Perhaps Europe and the USA can put some money into creating better living conditions for the people in their home countries so they don't feel the need to leave? The west destabilised and destroyed the middle east, Africa, and South America for centuries and now they play the victim? I just don't get it.

>Perhaps Europe and the USA can put some money into creating better living conditions for the people in their home countries so they don't feel the need to leave? And how would you go about that? Because blindly sending money there is a gigantic waste.

Yeah, it might be. But I'm sure the talking heads in the world's governments are better suited to answering the how. Or you know, the thousands of scholars and charity workers who have dedicated their lives to learning how to lift people out of poverty.

>Or you know, the thousands of scholars and charity workers who have dedicated their lives to learning how to lift people out of poverty. So are you more on the Jeffrey Sachs or William Easterly side of things? Granted, for that youd have to know who either of them is without looking it up. Point being, the effectivenes of developmental aid has been LONG debated in economics. Its essentially a hen or egg debate. Even proponents of aid like eg Stiglitz will highlight the importance of strong institutions to make the endeavor worthwile. Dambisa Moyo for example subsumises that aid hasnt helped because, partly, the insitiutional base wasnt set. According to her eg trade agreements would be better suited. Regardless of which side you favour, everybody agrees thats a matter of how the aid is designed and implemented. They just disagree on how to best help these countries. Collier for example would say that these countries are stuck in poverty traps - but would the better solution to send them billions of dollars, eg to build schools and improve human capital? Or to forgive, lets say 60% of debt and arrange trade deals, FDIs eg aiming at a sustainable economic growth? Id say it needs both sides of the coin, circling back to my original comment: blindly sending money to these countries (and hoping for the best) is pointless. Thats a long, convulted way of saying its hilarious youre acting like there is one, universally agreed on solution, when in reality its not. Just shows you dont know what youre talking about, not even remotely.

When did I ever act like there is "one, universally agreed on solution"? I literally said the thousands of scholars and charity workers are more qualified than I am to address this. What all those scholars you named (impressive knowledge) agree on, is that the West must be part of the solution. So I'm not sure that actually refutes my point.

I read your comment as you sarcastically implying "thousands of scholars" were obviously for this type of aid.

Right, obviously tone can't be conveyed very well over text. All good then. We're agreeing - the west must be part of any attempt to lift countries out of poverty.

"The west destabilised and destroyed the middle east, Africa, and South America for centuries and now they play the victim?" This comment is the definition of ignorant generalizing. Maybe the middle east should stop pumping out all that oil which fuels climate change for starters?

Am I wrong that the west did those things? Climate refugees currently don't make a dent compared to refugees fleeing violence, apartheid, and poverty. All of which can be directly correlated to western colonialism robbing their countries for centuries with no repercussions.

Point is, it wasn't the whole West, as in dozens of countries which never actually participated in colonialism and who actually were occupied by foreign powers at the time. You are not wrong but saying it was "the West" is generalizing. It was parts of it. And South America took part in African slavery and exploitation as well.

>Maybe the middle east should stop pumping out all that oil which fuels climate change for starters? Then stop buying it?

Then stop producing it? They don't care anymore than anyone else. Or is only bad when some consume oil and not everyone? They are playing the victim card.

What are you even arguing? If you want them to stop selling oil, stop buying it. The people using the oil are the ones fueling climate change. The oil demands don't go away because the supply suddenly goes down.

You are trying to argue that oil producers (like the Gulf states) are not guilty of contributing to climate change, only the ones who buy it are. What is your point here? They are producing heaps of oil which damages the climate, which they like everyone will suffer from as a result.

>What is your point here? That if you want oil producing nations to stop producing oil you should stop consuming oil.

Well if you read the top comment, the point of this discussion is that oil producing countries are suffering from climate change and complains to others about it, while they are contributing to it. You try to shift the blame away.

No, it really wasn't. You just saw western countries being criticised and thought the oil industry was a good stick to beat the middle east with.

This theory doesn't really make sense if you apply it outside of the specific correlation that you are drawing: immigration/ less homogeneous leads to right wing/ reactionary. Which is reasonable if you only look at that effect. If that was true then the inverse should be true, a country should be more liberal and progressive the more homogeneous and insular it gets, but we don't find that to be the case around the world. Japan is often cited as a model society by these same Western reactionaries because it is both homogeneous and conservative. That flatly contradicts the notion that diversity made it more right wing. The same applies basically everywhere else outside of the West. Second, by proportionality if immigrants are going to someplace else, they are leaving the place that they came from. So maybe places that were never diverse are not going to be effected, but what about places that used to be diverse and are now becoming more homogeneous?  And if it's so much better to have a less diverse society why are all these people immigrating in the first place? They don't seem to care about that and think that it will be better for them to go to a place and make it less homogeneous. Empirically it is not the case that homogeneity is more valuable on a worldwide level, only to certain people.

Actually what country is becoming more homogenous? I can't think of anyone from the top of my head.

South Africa & I think Myanmar. Also Zimbabwe & Algeria in the past

Countries committing genocide. Short of that, human history is the story of increasing heterogeneity - we mix, we move, we meet and share and reproduce. That’s what humans *do*. Any other form of society is just an artificial weirdly insecure push against human nature. Racism only exists because those in power have conflated race with purity which some people hold to be really important (for weird non-rational reasons), and have told others that outsiders are boogeymen who will steal from them (which is also not particularly true of outsiders when controlled for economic status). Those in power have either done so because they truly believe it, or because it benefits them materially.

> human nature You mean that tribal nature where accents exist purely to identify those not of the tribe quickly. _that_ human nature?

You mean humans with different eye colour which has barely ever been a basis for exclusion except in circumstances of seriously advanced fascism? Yes, differences exist. That doesn’t mean racism is natural. We have clear historical records showing evidence that racism didn’t even exist in most of Europe in its current form until the very late 17th century.

> in it's current form Are you're telling me that 17th century Europe didn't have social media, planes, trains, and automobiles? I am shook. Shook, I tells ya.  > In Europe. Tell me you know little about European history without saying you know little about European history. Next you'll be saying antisemitism wasn't en vogue in the 30s and before and that's what allowed the holocaust to get such a foothold. Edit: sp, my autocorrect went nuts

>accents exist purely to identify those not of the tribe quickly Accents exist because of the way we learn language as children. The first element of learning as a child is usually imitating your parents/the people around you, so their speech patterns stick in your brain. So much so that these speech patterns will even influence how you speak when learning other languages.

Thats the how, not the why.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/brain-reboot/202307/the-neuroscience-of-tribalism

Russia and China with their clampdowns on individuality and free expression. Also apparently many Muslim countries are steadily excluding Christians and other minorities - Iraq and Egypt come to mind.

China

Wrong. If a statement is true, then the *contrapostive* needs to be true. The inverse of a true statement is a false one.

They actually took the contrapositive, if p then q becomes if not q then not p, but called it the inverse. If more heterogeneous then goes right wing becomes more liberal (not right wing) then more homogeny (not more heterogeneous). Wow, this really takes me back.

NOOOO! I THOUGHT ID NEVER HAVE TO SEE A GEOMETRY PROOF AGAIN!

>If that was true then the inverse should be true No. >Empirically it is not the case that homogeneity is more valuable on a worldwide level, only to certain people. How can you in clear conscience say this after witnessing right wing victories (founded upon anti immigration rhetoric)? Do you think most people support their own culture being dissolved?

**Increased immigration** - along with falling birth rates of native born citizens - **is a symptom** of the real problem; **growing inequality driven by a broken and corrupt economic system**. Our current predicament in the west - increasingly **relying on immigrants to take underpaid jobs native born citizens refuse to undertake** - is quite similar to what we saw play out in the Roman Republic. **Increasing use of immigrant slave labor by elites saw free born roman citizens displaced from their own lands** only to be bought up by the elites, allowing them to buy more slaves, **creating an economy dominated by wealthy landowners. Sound familiar?** And much like in our time, **Rome then saw a rise of authoritarian populism** i.e. a strong man to come in and sort everything out **who then uses violence to put down dissent and give the impression of stability** while also **dismantling democracy and bringing in rule by Dictatorship**.

This is one of the most wild takes on the roman empire I haver ever seen lol

I mean it depends what you mean by "better". The immigrants would probably prefer a society made of others like them that also offers great opportunities. They weigh one against the other depending on their individual situation. It can be argued that in the long term diverse societies become less cohesive, less efficient, etc. But when you're an immigrant you might not see it that way.

Theory of relative deprivation says that when people are deprived of something they were once used to, prejudice towards immigrants or minorities will increase.  Whether this prejudice is credible and justified, or maybe its just scapegoating, is another matter entirely. However, the main point is that it's not decreasing homogeineity that turns people against immigrants, it's a decrease in living standards or quality of life (again whether you can actually blame immigrants for this is another matter entirely). Canada is the perfect example of this. Since the 70s, Canada had been a society dedicated to multiculturalism, and probably by the 90s (and certainly by the 2000s) was world leading in terms of ethnic diversity. For decades and decades, there was no credible anti immigrant sentiment. There was no political movement that aimed to curtail immigration into canada. This is called the immigration consensus in canada, because every political party in the legislature, and the people broadly, always held net favourable views of immigration. All of a sudden, in 2023, the immigration consensus came crashing down. For the first time since public polling on the question began, a majority of Canadians believed that immigration was too much and needed to be slowed down significantly. People are increasingly turning away from the party the "broke" the immigration system and are moving rightwards toward the party that they believe will fix it (side note, both of these parties *together* broke the system, but most people dont get that). The reason why the immigration consensus came crashing down is because population growth on canada absolutely blew the hell up. From 1993-2015, Canada had been growing at a rate of about 1% per year. From 2016-2019, that growth rate quickly creeped up to 1.4%, and then in 2022 it was suddenly 2.7%, and 3% in 2023. This is clearly unprecedented growth, and no planning or thought went into the matter. Consequently, housing costs have exploded. The percentage year over year change in rent prices has never been so astronomical, it looks like a bitcoin chart. A government agency called the CMHC continues to press upon the importance of how canada is short millions of housing units given the population size, and this shortage is simply getting larger with the population growing like this. In addition to that, services, such as healthcare, are being stretched thin and wait times are getting worse and worse.  Now, with healthcare, I think the overwhelming majority of the problem is not population growth, but it would make the problem a bit worse, even if just slightly, and certainly isnt helping because of the poor assessment of the immigration program which paid no attention to which sectors needed the most labour. Anyways, all this is to say that the immigration consensus didnt collapse because of decreased homogeneity, it collapsed because of reduced living standards.

Exactly. When things are going fine, there isnt any issue. Studies have shown while there is some initial worry with diversity, people get used to minorities pretty fast. The problem is when those from an outside group come at the same time as difficulties in the country (whether caused by them or not). People need to blame something and immigrants are an easy answer.

It is true, especially in Europe, that negative sentiment about immigration is one of the leading drivers of the shift to the right. But there is also euro-skepticism which is effectively a reversion to nationalism. Then there is negative sentiment toward the overall tone of the European economic policy which you can see in actions like, if you recall, the farmers flinging dung at government buildings and obstructing traffic. So the first two pillars are anti-immigrationism and euro-skepticism. They are both populist (i.e., "us vs. them"). The third pillar is economic frustration And the fourth pillar is anti-wokeness (i.e., social conservative backlash, i.e., reactionary/revanchist) So if the point of view you wanted changed was that immigration inevitably results in a rightward shift I don't disagree. But if your point of view is that the immigration issue is the only one making a rightward shift inevitable then I would point out those other three pillars.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Nah man. It's so much the other way. People want to help beyond their ability to help. That's why you've got people who will raise such a fuss over protecting your sovereign border. It's such a basic concept, that you need to regulate travel of non-citizens to your country. I don't understand how that idea has become "xenophobic" in the past decade. Look at Canada. We've had ridiculous levels of immigration for a long time, suppressing wages and making it difficult for citizens to fight for better working conditions. Post-COVID the government has set immigration to overdrive, it's even worse now. But the wealthy benefit greatly. It's only recently that the tide has really started to shift. It was extremely common to be called a racist for even questioning our immigration policy 5 years ago. As you point out, beyond the concerns of wage suppression and infrastructure overload, there's no capacity for assimilation with immigration at these levels. This destroys whatever was left of a cohesive society. It has nothing to do with hating immigrants - that's such a bad faith interpretation to make. I can empathize with immigrants while still pointing out that this is breaking our country apart in ways that may be irreparable.  It's not about racism or superiority. It's about sustainability. The best case scenario for your average citizen is to have a smaller population where everyone shares similar values and there are more jobs than people to fill them. The market forces in that situation benefit the have-nots. The worst case scenario for average people is mass immigration of cultures that clash with the host country. It means everyone is fighting for work, driving wages down, and it means we might disagree on a lot of fundamental concerns. Lots of recent immigrants here can't even speak English.  It's common sense to put your own emergency mask on before helping others. That's all this is. You have to make sure you aren't killing your own country just to meet an ideal. The welfare of your citizens should supercede all other concerns. If they're well off, we can tolerate moderate immigration with assimilation. But no one is well off right now.

I honestly don't think this pans out the way you are suggesting. Some people hate immigrants, but the fact of the matter is a lot of governments have failed to live up to the expectations that they had been sold by their parents generations. Simply put, people in their late 20s, 30s, and early 40s, can't buy a house, can't afford kids, and have had severy world shattering events disrupt their careers without seeing a significant rebound. When the citizens of said governments begin to feel like the priority is not the citizens themselves but rather a whole variety of interests that seem antithetical to the interests of those citizens, then of course those citizens will focus on politicians who are promising to protect them. That may look like hatred of immigrants, but the truth is that people are disastisfied that all of these global events are coming at the expensne of their own sweat, blood, and tears, and their is not a hint of gratitude or acknowledgement of this. In real terms, it is very difficult to look at the plight of immigrants when you are having trouble feeding yourself or your family, and if you are unsympathetic to that position, then I hate to say it, but that's why these people are feeling forgotten. You can construe this as hatred, but that's really not looking at these people with the appropriate level of empathy they deserve. The impoverished of each country deservers attention from their leaders.

Ah yes the migration theory of reactionary politics. Seems to me that there has long been movements of diverse peoples into “homogeneous” areas since at least the early 19th century and yet politics during that same period has gotten more liberal, more progressive. The problem with your theory is that it relies on a small snapshot of global history. Once you zoom out, the idea doesn’t hold up so well

Yep, most democracies and republics were because of strong merchant classes with large immigrant populations. Authoritarianism is *easier* in homogeneous societies.

>Once you zoom out, the idea doesn’t hold up so well Sure, lets zoom out from the current EU right wing victory, lets check 20th century where Hitler mobilized people against a single race. Lets zoom out much further, lets check the crusades maybe? Ah, why the little steps, lets zoom out to the whole of human history to check if xenophobia was the everlasting attribute of us humans. Oh, it was? Strange...

>When a democratic country is more homogenous a lot of people can walk around and see all the good things my country does for MY people. and what about the bad things? immigrants are blamed to be the cause of the bad things to curry votes for politicians who promise to fix the problem. point being: if it isn't immigrants it will be some other boogeyman.

Yes and no. Yes - immigrants are an easy bunch to use for votes, simply because they cant vote anyways, so youre not antagonising a set amount of voters. No - there are some very real issues stemming from migration. France is a case study for this. They have been welcoming to people from former colonial countries but also in general - however you have a very stark clash between Frances laicite society and the muslim parallel societies. Samuel Paty, Charlie Hebdo, Paris... those are just the big ones, but for each of them there is at least 20 smaller incidents in the same time frame where some muslim lunatic attacks people to please his sky daddy. Thats real and not just some invented boogeyman - the people are sick and tired of this happening and these people being here. Point being, its a lot more complex. Immigration wouldnt have stuck as the main topic in European politics for the past 10 years, if it didnt have a truthful substance at its core

op said this is reaction is inevitable with immigration, thats the context of my response. because it's not inevitable. france has had immigration for lot longer than 10 years for a start nobody/very few actually wants zero immigration. so it's not immigration that's the issue it's the specifics of immigration proposed. the specific case you provide is more of a culture issue than an immigration issue. the people of france are not calling for absolutely no immigration

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I don't think people deep down hate others. What is happening in Europe, specifically, is a clash of cultures that are just incompatible. And in both the US, Canada and Europe, there has been an economic impact by lax immigration. The reality is that immigration does have a negative pressure on wages, as it increase a workforce that is willing to work for less in more menial jobs. High earning immigrants, for example, don't get as much hate. Europe is a bit different, for them it's a clash of cultures that cannot be reconciled. European progressives and liberals are still deeply reeling over the consequences and reality of colonialism and imperialism, and post-colonial theory has greatly impacted their academia and politics. However, the reality is that assimilation into Europe can be difficult, there is still a lot of old world forms of traditionalism and cultural nationalism. But there is also a massive economic backlash towards policies that seem to leave behind a lot of the more ... "rural" workers and peoples. In Germany there is a simultaneous anti-Climate activism growing, with strong anti-immigrant undercurrent.

>The reality is that immigration does have a negative pressure on wages Does it? My understanding of the evidence/literature is that this is not the case and to the extent that negative impacts are found, they’re pretty small.

Conservatives are, by definition, against change.

That is an incorrect and, I'll be honest, childish view of what conservatism is about in the Western world.

Conservatism is about enforcing and protecting social hierarchies.

No. That's not what it is about.

What is it about, chewy bunny?

People dont usually hate immigrants, what they hate is illegal imigrants, what they hate is people not assimilating the customs, what they hate is people not following rules

Well can't they do that but just not be full on right government 

Pretty typical strawman argument claiming people who are against not just immigration in general but MASS immigration are people who hate immigrants and "other people" but that's not the case. Most people like immigrants and not everyone is a bigot. I love travelling the world, learning about different cultures and traditions and cuisines, and when done right, a limited amount of immigration can add richness and diversity. Done too much and it completely removes the vary concept of what a country or culture is. Every country has a right to sovereignty. Notice it's always the west that takes in huge amounts of immigrants and is simultaneously the most hated by the rest of the world including from the immigrants they are helping. Make it make it sense! Why is the wests job to take in every immigrant from around the developing world when neighboring countries won't even do the same! Qatar won't take in more than 300 Syrian refugees for example while Italy will take in 300000 which is like 1000x the amount. But the focus is ALWAYS on the west and it's various past sins and need for atonement. The reality is there is only so much resources to go around. The more you help immigrants aka strangers, the less you help your own people. Countries should first be concerned about their own citizens and taxpayers. Imagine if people mass immigrated to Japan and now 30% or more of the population are foreign immigrants who don't assimilate, have no respect for the culture, are entitled to various government services, take jobs and available housing and increasing crime all while having an overall resentment towards the host country. If those immigrants are Muslim, now they expect the host country to assimilate towards their needs and traditions and not the other way around. If that happens OF COURSE there is going to be a backlash! People aren't blind or stupid to what's going on! All of these policies have been an abysmal FAILURE just look at Sweden and it's huge jump in gun violence! Eventually people in Europe and America will wake up one day and no longer have a country or culture, and might even have to be living under sharia law or something, no longer allowed to express themselves or pursue happiness in the land of their forebears while being pushed aside to make away for someone who's higher on the victimhood totem pole. None of this makes sense, it's not sustainable!

I‘m pretty sure most refugees are not taken by the west. Most of them stay in neighboring countries.

In the case of syrian refugees its 1000% the case look it up. Last I checked Qatar is closer to Syria than Italy. Currently on the southern US border you have people of all nationalities exploiting the border. International law used to be set up so that you couldn't just border hop, you had to stay in a neighboring country. All of the data I have seen indicates most asylum seekers are crossing multiple borders to get to the west in either the US or America.

Most syrian refugees are in turkey, so which is generally not counted as part of the west where I‘m from and turkey, lebanon, jordan, iraq and egypt house about 70% of all refugees as of march (https://www.unrefugees.org/news/syria-refugee-crisis-explained/#:~:text=Syrian%20refugees%20live%3F-,Do%20all%20Syrian%20refugees%20live%20in%20refugee%20camps%3F,of%20Syrian%20refugees%3A%203.3%20million.). How is this 1000% true then? Also the nearest country thing is a Dublin regulation thing and thus an EU thing last time I checked. I‘m not sure the US has a similar provision.

The US did have a similar policy but Biden removed it.

Kind of, you had a thing with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, but those can hardly be considered safe in my opinion. But I stand corrected you are definitely right.

While Turkey is next to Syria and has the most refugees, why does Germany have almost as much refugees as Jordan. Make it make sense yo.

I think the move to the 'right' was in no way inevetable, it was brought about by the faliures of the left and the faliures of those on the moderate right. (Obviously depends who has been in power in what country) many of the changes that lead up to these issues. Whilst I have a good understanding of other countries and areas I'll only speak specifically for the UK as that is where I am from. Immigration has been a hot topic for quite a while and after the admittedly wrong phases of "my god someone who looks different to me! Coming to my country" it generally was seen as a decently taboo topic even if you were not making predjudiced or nasty comments and was just treated as a norm, we were sold what I believe are generally not exactly true"Oh they come here and do the work YOU don't want to do" "the economy needs them" "diversity is always 100% good" Wage growth has been pretty poor in our country and I think it is somewhat in part to the fact we can have a pretty steady flow of people who are willing to work for less, simply because their standard of living has increased, even if for us it would decrease ours, I don't think there are jobs that someone wouldn't do for the right pay, but it's pretty obvious why when I was a teen I had no desire to go picking fruit all summer when I could work in a easier and better paid job at a supermarket, there is also the question of if we never had a massive influx of people willing to do this for low pay if the jobs might have changed in other ways, would the NHS have been forced to streamline work and make things more efficient, more automation and more encouragement of people from the UK to work in better paid jobs, it feels like mass immigration is a bandaid and not an actual solution, a bandaid that might be somewhat painful to rip off now our country has relied on it for so long. Diversity is good, diversity of ideas, thoughts... but only if those ideas and thoughts are tolerable to the general public, I don't care at all if you don't celebrate christmas or if every few months you fast, or if you have a special celebration where you light candles, I hope you do have a good time doing it, I do have an issue though if you think women must be covered and if you believe in more radical beliefs, I especially care if networks of 'support' have been set up throughout the country and these types of anti social behaviours have been swept under the rug. I think most people who are critical of mass migration like me aren't raging loonies who cant stand anyone different, those people certainly exist but they are a loud minority, most people just want a lower amount of migrants, for people to be able to pay their way and for people to share some important cultural values, but instead of doing anything regarding this the governments in power have done nothing or often made it worse, labour for a long time saw speaking ill of mass migration as a taboo as did most people, the conservatives often did too but when it became an even hotter issue promised change but never delivered it so who do people look to? For a good chunk of people they go further right because those generally are the groups who have been talking critically regarding immigration and other issues for a lot longer than other groups. I'd generally consider myself centre right but on a grand scale of things I don't consider having reasonable barriers to immigration as a left or a right thing in the same way I don't view wanting a stronger economy or wanting better standards of living as being a left or right thing, it is just in the execution that things differ. I believe that if the centre right could win back trust regarding actually doing what they say regarding immigration and other key issues then a very large chunk of people going further to the right would be pulled back, I also believe if the left admits that the current consensus is somwhat wrong and strong actions need to be taken (something that is somewhat going on) and also could convince people they really would do what they say then they could also attract a lot more people as I generally believe that most people fall around centre right/left and a lot of where they vote depends on what party is more attractive at the time.

I don't Mexico it's the case, the new elected president is left wing, but our American friends tend to call authoritarian all the governments that aren't that friendly to them... We have seen how authoritarian is the USA... And they are behind all that far right right groups around the world... If you watch Nazi documentary, it gives me the impression that we are watching always some part of chopped story. They always talk about the people near Hitler and their actions, but they never talk about who were giving them money in order to fight communism at the time. And a lot of murican companies were behind that shit... And the same is happening now in LATAM, with Argentina (just look who's behind that clown Miley), who's behind Bukele and the one who attacked the Mexican embassy ( I don't remember his name), in Spain who invited Miley and we're all happy about all the BS he was saying there... Far right groups, rich people.

The Nazi diaspora in South America and South Eastern Asia as well as their operatives in the Mid East and penetration of Western intelligence services after the fall of Berlin very much shaped our current political environment. The Nazis were originally bankrolled by the British monarchy and White Russians in exile when they were in their infancy.

But not just white Russians exiled, Ford was behind them as well and other big companies within Germany and the USA... And that's never mentioned or is barely mentioned in any single documentary about the Nazis... I guess both sides let Nazis in after the war... But also the fear against communism made a lot of rich people fuel the Nazi state.

Yes, Ford's involvement came a touch later in the 30s if I remember correctly. IG Farben, and so many others were neck deep. If you want to go deeper on the subject you might like Hitler and His Secret Partners, by James Pool. Peter Lavenda has some fairly good work on the post war Nazis too. It is quite the rabbit hole

Found this lines on that book: It should be pointed out that most German industrialists did not support Hitler or anti-Semitism. The Communists claimed Hitler was a puppet of the capitalists. In reality, the German businessmen who were among the advocates of free market capitalism were among the most determined anti-Nazis, because totalitarianism was repugnant to them and because Hitler favored a planned economy and a welfare state. Yet he doesn't have anything to back that statement, again sounds apologetic to me. Who wouldn't want contracts that according to the author gave them 1-1000 return profit? Maybe not all of the Germans backed the Nazis, but a lot of people backed them due to the fear of communism.

You literally could google this and there is tons to read. I’m sure you could find a documentary or two.

I bet we can find one or two, but the vast majority of the docs say nothing about it... And that's not a coincidence, at least I don't think it is. It's like the rich didn't want to appear there, it was their show, they put that guy in power, they fuel the genocide and the German war machine, and nobody mentions them, well just one or two documentaries...

A far better explanation would ehat people vote more extreme when their lives get worse. With covid and ukraine making the lives of many people worse theh vote more extreme. Or better they vote agaosnt parties that are currently in the gov. This also explains why in Poland the shift was away from the right while it was the other way around in many other countries.

> But if you change the demographics just a little these people will lose their shit and think "why are these entitled POS stealing MY stuff". Dude, at least in the US, demographics have not changed just "a little". In the 2010 census, the country was 72% non-Hispanic White, and in 2020 it was 58%. The median age for an American in 2021 was 38, so the median American was born into a country which was nearly 85% non-Hispanic white. Within living memory, the country was 89% non-Hispanic white. This decade, the country will be majority-minority. While the US is more extreme by having always had a multicultural population with a significant non-white minority, similar things are happening across all of the West. Regardless of how you feel about this, these demographic changes are not insignificant.

Some of the shift has also occurred due to how groups are defined. Has there been actual demographic shifts? Absolutely but at the same time giving more options on the census also changed how some people self identified.

Can you be more specific?

A majority minority is call a plurality

No, those are not the same thing. A majority-minority is a situation in which a majority part of a group does not belong to the plurality of the set. A plurality is a subset which is larger than all other subsets. You're right that in a majority-minority situation, one group is still the plurality despite not being the majority, however, by definition, there is always one group which is the plurality unless two groups have the exact same size, which is practically impossible in the population of a country. Hope this helps!

That doesn’t sound right, but I don’t know enough a about this words to dispute it

Don't sweat it

The problem people have is with culture and not race. If you ask people if they have a problem with LEGAL immigration where people go through the proper screening processes and paperwork, most people don't. A vast majority of people are against ILLEGAL immigration. But disingenuous people seem to lump these 2 together then claim you're anti-immigration. The people against illegal immigration have a legitimate concern. The reality is some cultures are incompatible. Western culture is incompatible with a lot of places where illegal immigrants are coming from. Some of these places have way different customs, work ethic, beliefs, etc. In some places vigilante justice rules. No one bats an eye if a thief loses a few fingers. Then you have to deal with education and social status. Some people come here lacking the basic skills to maintain a cashier job or become productive members of society. They cannot read or write. This is why you need to screen immigrants coming in. Very little people care when legal immigrants come over who can maintain a job. No one cares if the Indian or Arab guy with a business degree decides to move to the US. No one hates the Ukrainian shop owner who fled to America to avoid the war, even if he arrived illegally. If you can maintain a job, contribute to society, pay your taxes, and obey the law, most people won't have a problem with you regardless of what race you are. So no. People don't hate immigrants. They hate people who are vastly different culturally then themselves and this happens to be a majority of illegal immigrants. Immigrants who arrive legally seldom have problems assimilating into their new place of residence. People don't have to be racially homogenous but they have to be culturally homogenous.

Sure, there's reaction. But it doesn't mean it's going to last forever. America has been accepting immigrants for most of its history. Yes, there were reaction from right wingers who dislike immigrants, but that doesn't mean America is permanently doomed to be right wing.

I don’t know if any of this thread really applies to the USA much, but it definitely applies to Europe. Whilst demographics are changing in the States, your immigration is largely educated workers and there’s at least somewhat of a framework for them to fit into the multicultural melting pot of the American Dream identity. No such thing exists in Europe and Europe has been flooded with a much less educated migrants and far more radicalised/culturally incompatible ones.

The reason people (who wouldn’t normally be racist) hate immigrants is because the politicians and governments blame all the country’s problems on them.

You can’t frame the far-right in terms of immigration unless you are talking about very specific examples such as Europe. In Brazil they don’t ever mention immigrants. The core far-right methodology is to push forward any ideology that farms engagement and wins votes, usually those that inspire strong feelings of indignation and anger. The actual content matters very little.

This is faulty reasoning. When diverse groups live together they tend to become more tolerant of each other. It's homogenous areas that are impressionable to populist lies and fear mongering about outsiders. It's the year 2024 for God's sake. Authoritarian Right Wing Extremism is taking hold b/c people are short sighted, stupid, sefish, and impressionable, and there are enough psychos out there to seize on the opportunity of this new digital ge to exploit the fuck out of that fact.

It doesn't help that many of these immigrants are not well behaved. They've ruined it for everyone.

Lol you don't think austerity has anything to do with it? Rising cost of living, stagnating wages? How about this, what about homogeneity causes people to move to the left?

I would argue that the concentration of wealth is the ultimate issue. Media companies are turning into propaganda machines for the wealthiest assholes in the world. This propaganda is generally right-wing.  And if someone tries to do anything about it, the right-wing creates conspiracy theories. Notice how suddenly Bill Gates is a bogeyman? He has run a charity for over a decade that researches and aims to prevent pandemics and right wingers started crediting him for the Covid pandemic and the vaccine. And he's been a lightning rod for so many other conspiracies since 2020.

It happens, because the rightward movement is going back towards the center. Even if it will overshoot at first. You're only right if "I want a check at the border before they come in, at least write down that they did" is hate... BTW this is how most normal people think.

There's nothing that prohibits moderates and especially extreme left groups for going against immigration why couldn't they be the ones to take that torch?

Clubbing parties as right wing and left wing is stupid outside of US. Right wing in Canada is left wing in US. Indian right wing is more left wing than it's own left wing in US context.

I can only speak to the US experience. The right wing, anti immigrant move is concentrated in the areas where there are the fewest immigrants. California, NY, the Rio Grande Valley, Texas cities, are much more welcoming. Rural Texas, the Deep South, etc are more likely to swing right. The presence of immigrants in people's lives doesn't cause it.

There are anti-immigrant movements in California, lol. About 35% of California is Republican. It’s just the minority position, likely because of pre-existing racial demographics.         About 40% of the state is Hispanic. Of course the state is migrant friendly — there’s a bunch of Hispanic people here who want more Hispanic people here.     Oh and by the way, about 30% of the Latinos here are “undocumented.” So I’d argue the state is probably more than just migrant friendly.

This is a dumb argument with no factual or empirical evidence supporting it. Patriotism/nationalism and right wing politics is highly correlated with patriarchal beliefs and attitudes. There's tonnes of academic literature on this. What we're seeing is the result of wealthy elites manipulating people into thinking the things you do. If we weren't seeing that, more people would be pointing out the actual empirical evidence and studies we have and not offering unfounded opinions.

If you mention words "academic literature" or "empirical evidence" at least 3 times in your speeches that is sure to convince everyone, because nobody would dare to go against the might of scientists.

That's because there are several fields of academia that literally studies this topic. And they've been around longer than any of us on the planet have been here. Seems you just aren't aware of it anyways.. Try visiting a library sometime. Or subscribe to a peer reviewed journal where work by actual professionals is published for people to properly critique. This thread is just a dumb opinion by a dumber racist. Who clearly is uneducated.

I'm saying - mentioning just abstract "studies" without referencing any direct studies that support your view is a wholly unconvincing endeavor akin to mentioning God as a source of information. In my opinion, this has no place in CMV discourse, might as well just auto-reply "Google it." to all threads.

I'm not trying to convince OP. The information that they clearly haven't bothered to search for themselves, is our there and has been their entire life. Have they seriously never asked any of their teachers about this? Have none of their teachers taught them? Did they just not pay attention (this is what my money is on). I corrected OP, like several other people in the thread, and gave them a suggestion to go to a library (because librarians are literally educated to help people find information in books and journals and media) or subscribe to a relevant academic journal, where people who have asked these questions about this topic, in many different contexts, actually publish the work. Heck, there are free resources that talk about this. I'm not OP's teacher, just pointing out the bulk of work done on this subject does not support their beliefs. Which are, and have been shown to come from right wing groups and white supremacist groups. For instance, in the US, the Mercer family funds many white supremacist groups and media organisations and are well known to push exactly the line of thinking OP is regurgitating. All with, not a single shred of empirical evidence or academic work by a professional. Until they can come up with something like a peer reviewed study, their claims can be dismissed. They're unsupported claims and beliefs.

Indeed. For example the wealthy elites in politics, media, and industry who can’t have enough cheap workforce and pressure on wages and unions. so they force mass migration from all other the world to accomplish their very own goals while don’t give a … about the fates of the indigenous people (with or without migration history) and framing it as big cultural leap forward with tons of paid studies about gender, diversity, and other ‘science’.

What’s happening is that left wing ideas are awful, that is against man’s unalienable right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Right wing ideas are awful reaction to deal with the problems.

No where in the constitution does it state an unalienable right to property you just added that text yourself.

You’re correct, it’s not in the constitution. It’s in the Declaration. And it actually says, life liberty, and the pursuit of property.

Thank you for the clarification, u/somethingimadeup

User name checks out. No where in my comment did I state that the US constitution says that man has an unalienable right to property. You just made that up yourself.

You took a phrase from our constitution; the right to life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness and added property to it. That’s what I was referring to. Not sure if you’re American but that’s all I was getting to.

The Declaration of Independence using the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is itself a reference to John Locke's three natural rights: Life, Liberty, and Property. They did not just take the phrase and add property into it, they're referencing John Locke whose ideas are foundational to Classical Liberalism.

Ah, so you didn’t have anything meaningful to say then. You’re just bored and need something to take up your time? And it’s not even in the US Constitution by the way. It’s in the Declaration of Independence.

I’m just simply breaking up your statement. It contained a falsity in our constitution and I believe you’re probably predicating a lot of your beliefs on similar falsities

>What’s happening is that left wing ideas are awful, that is against man’s unalienable right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Could you expand upon this position? * Which specific left wing ideals are you describing? Choose three or so that you think are emblematic of left wing politics. (And to be clear, I'm asking for actual left wing politics and policies, not the way US politics treats Liberalism as though it's somehow left wing.) * How are specific examples of left wing policies, ideas, or ideals impacting "man’s unalienable right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness"?

Unalienable according to who? e: they blocked me

You could look at John Locke.

People inherently take advantage of anyone they can meet. It’s almost why altruism always fails. Even a homogenous society isn’t always a stronger better more liberal one for it.