> European far-right parties deliberately maintain theatrical opposition while avoiding actual restriction when governing (Meloni importing 100,000 workers, Wilders accomplishing nothing, British Conservatives presiding over record immigration) because theyre edging societys momentum toward the point when mass indiscriminate remigration becomes politically viable. They require the crisis to worsen until wholesale deportation (including of integrated, productive immigrants) enters mainstream discourse which we are heading towards.
I've considered this conspiratorial theory before. I don't think it's true, though. The more plausible explanation in my view is that most European states are not actually sovereign, and most elected populist leaders in that continent have their hands tied by an authoritarian bureaucratic administrative super-state that relies on a permanently underpaid underclass to keep the "economy" (read: entitlements) solvent.
Also, you've abstracted away the particular issues surrounding Muslim migration. You mentioned them -- FGM, consanguinous marriages, etc. -- but failed to point out that these issues are unique to Muslim populations. I'm not arguing that all of the problems of mass immigration are uniquely caused by Muslims, but there are some problems that are unique to Muslims, and it's important to be cognizant of that.
I agree with the structural assessment, I added “schizo pet theory“ because it feds my conspiratorial mind but the real reason is the ECHR and the myriad of systems the EU has put in place that constrain any real reform.
You are correct in pointing it out, I didnt explicitly mention it as I thought of this piece as a continuation of the Muslim immigratio one. European immigration is largely Muslim in nature (Arab/Black) with pockets of SEA and Latinos, so most dysfunctionlities are directly tied to that. FGM is an African issue for example, it is a non existent problem amongst Maghrebis or Turks which are the larger populations in France/Germany.
I like your piece, Asmy, but keep in mind that the "new" EU member states don't have nearly as much Muslim immigration. I'm an immigrant in the Czech Republic myself. I am originally from the Balkans, but most immigrants (from outside of EU) are Ukrainian, with a distant 2nd/3rd being Vietnamese and Russian (not sure in which order). That may change in the future (to be seen), but that's how it is at the moment.
That is true, I will add this caveat at the end, Kaiser Bauch talks much about it. I think Central/Eastern european countries are doing good because they are still below the threshold of integration. Going from the Balkans to Czech republic which is in the same cultural sphere, you probably also have education and/or skills because Yugoslavia had the socialist education mindset where vagrancy was not allowed.
I will from now on refer to Western European immigration to not group the new EU states which dont have these issues (for now) but it will all depend on how they integrate people. 2nd gen Ukranians being the lumpenproletariat in Czechia or Poland in 2045 is not gonna be a nice problem to have either.
Right. There is a serious possibility that CZ/Poland will simply not be able to integrate Ukrainians at scale, leading to serious problems. Mind you, it's also possible that the Ukrainians in question will not actually stay (at scale) but will migrate further West.
There is already a precedent in that, many Moroccans/Arabs in Spain and Italy migrated elsewhere after the Eurozone crisis between 2011-2014. But those who migrated self-selected as the good ones, migrating (as you probably now) is very expensive and requires some initial capital, mindset and skills to find work.
If Europe doesn't want Muslim mass immigration they shouldn't have invaded and destabilized a lot of middle eastern countries.
Take Denmark. They jumped to participate in Iraqi war. They bombed Libya in 2011. Supplied a lot of military aid to Israel. Intervened in Syrian war. Don't forget Afghanistan. After all these wars they don't want to take in immigrants from all these destabilized countries.
If not for western intervention there wouldn't be any Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeeda, Iranian mullah regime or Hamas. The whole middle east would be a lot more secular and peaceful.
Don't even talk about climate change and how middle east is the most affected region and how the west predominantly caused the climate change.
This is why I support mass immigration of Muslims to Europe.
- Algeria, which had a civil war that no western country provoked
- Turkey, which also was involved on the Syrian war and thus got immigration
- African countries whose dysfunction is independent of war, and resulting from post-colonial corrupt elites
Afghanistan and Iraq were mainly America’s war which many great countries choose to sit out (France/Germany). There are almost no Lybians in Europe.
These are all classical points, climate west was not made by the West but by humans overall. Even if no western intervention happened the Middle East would have fallen to illiberal and fundamentalist forces because of independent reasons, Western intervention is undeserved but it just hastened an existing problem.
By this logic Oman should take all the immigrants from Tanzania because of spavery, Morocco all West Africans and China should open up to unlimited SEA immigration
Where's your list from? For what countries? For entire EU Syria and Afghanistan are the prime locations illegal immigrants are from.
"Middle East would have fallen to illiberal and fundamentalist forces because of independent reasons"
Do you really think Taliban would have come to rule Afghanistan even if US didn't fund Mujahideen? Do you think ISIS would have come to existence even if US didn't invade Iraq? Israel funded Hamas for decades against secular organizations like PLO and PFPL.
"climate west was not made by the West but by humans overall"
>Historical cumulative CO2 emissions are highly disproportionate to current population sizes. While the United States and European Union comprise only about 10% of the world's current population, they are responsible for approximately 40% of cumulative historical emissions.
While they are significantly resistant combatting climate change. Look at all the far right parties who are climate change deniers.
Westerners can't even reduce their beef consumption or air travel a bit for the sake of climate.
>Afghanistan and Iraq were mainly America’s war which many great countries choose to sit out (France/Germany).
They participated in Afghan war. Still supplied weapons to USA for Iraq war. Many countries like Poland, UK, Denmark, Italy participated in these wars.
"By this logic Oman should take all the immigrants from Tanzania because of spavery"
There are no "far right" parties in power in Europe. Meloni's fdl is not "far right at all. In the grand scheme of things they are centre left at most.
Really solid breakdown on the integration throttle concept. The distiction between individual benefit and systemic collapse is soemthing people miss constantly. I moved cities last year and saw similiar dynamics play out with rapid gentrification where early movers benefited but at-scale destroyed what made the place attractive. Good framing tbh.
Super informative. It sounds like the problem in Europe vs. the US, Australia, and Canada's quite distinct due to selection effects, and I've become convinced that the US is less able to deal with them even if the GOP runs the country for 12 years and keeps it within carrying capacity. Even though the Anglophone countries have immigration that skews skilled and upwardly mobile, they've institutionalized multiculturalism so thoroughly for generations to combat their original sins (stolen land, plus slavery in the US case) through affirmative action, ethnic heritage months, ethnic studies curricula, etc and present such racialized narratives of history in school that it incentivizes immigrant populations to distance themselves from the preexisting mainstream. History is framed as the story of whites coming to the New World, butchering the indigenous people, oppressing black people, and mistreating the trickle of Asians and others who managed to slip through their respective immigration restrictions. As a result, every nonwhite is lumped into the oppressed side of the oppressor-oppressed divide, and the edge cases like Arabs and Persians have been lobbying to get reclassified as nonwhite so that they can cash in on the diversity industry. Hence, Europe seems able to integrate upwardly mobile immigrant populations like Vietnamese, whereas in America the upwardly mobile ones like Indians, Asians, and MENAs often end up embracing political multiculturalism the most (Saira Rao, Michelle Wu, Rashida Tlaib, and so on) and form racial advocacy groups like AAAJ.
Yeah, I think my beating drum with this post and his brother (On Muslim immigration) is that European immigration and Anglo one are completely different beasts that usually get lumped together.
Thanks for the Anglo context, this is very enriching and I didnt know even Asians adopted the victim mentality.
I don’t think the rights primary problem with immigrants is restrictionist. Surely a decade of Trump proves that. Border counties in Texas are 90% Hispanic and vote red now. Governors in Florida and Texas are busing immigrants away and calling them a bunch of criminals and they are winning landslides. I think immigrants understand the “it’s ok to pull up the ladder after me” thing.
I think the primary problem the right has is its against welfare. Most immigrants are heavier than Average welfare users. Romney lost immigrants hard because he opposed Obamacare.
Trump up until recently totally conceded to the welfare state. Hispanics voted for him because they liked the economy of 2019 better than 2024.
If he losses I think it will be because of his cuts to ACA, Medicaid, and Medicare advantage that bring him down. The median immigrant is definitely pro-gibs. Desire for welfare > conservative cultural believes.
On the high end Asians generally want to assimilate to blue state professional norms to get ahead. If they gotta claim there are 12 genders to get into Harvard, so be it. They are also more naturally conformist and deferential to authority, which are leftist traits these days.
I don't even think Asians these days are doing it to get ahead. Asian libs are genuinely convinced they're victims, which is why so many second gen Asians get accused of "acting black" growing up because they get into black pop culture out of a sense of alienation from whites. In grad school I knew Singaporean bureaucrats who were just in the US for two years and who were worried about getting hate crimed by whites before arrival. Miss Singapore wore a StopAsianHate dress one year, and on Twitter you can see Asians in Asia talk about how racist they think the US and Australia are. In Vietnam a friend asked me whether I had difficulty growing up in the US due to being half-Korean. Many already believe this stuff before even immigrating.
A man believes what he has to to make a living. What Asians adopt cynically quickly becomes what they actually believe authentically.
There is a phrase "Jews are just like everyone else, only more so". The same is true of Asians. In a world where not having children is the elite consensus, Jews and Asians have few children. In a world where having more children is the consensus (Israel), jews have more children.
If we whites solve the fertility problem I suppose Asians might follow us. In the meantime please understand that IOUs from the US treasury aren't going to make up for not having children.
Sorry, labour protectionism is bad and the abolition of immigration restrictions would prevent immigrants from being forced to accept lower wages due to being dependent on their employer for continued residence. Also the easy way to crush "welfare dependency" is to abolish welfare.
If people took the "immigrants decrease wages" objection seriously, they'd advocate for internal passports, restrictions on commuting, and so on to stop wage decreases due to internal migration. The fact that nobody does this may indicate something.
Europe has more strict rules around labour which creates a black market for labor which makes unregulated labor very attractive overall. You could argue this is a distorsion of labor laws which would be correct, but these are still the consequences of such laws and given their popularity I see little possible reform.
Legalization of immigrants without dealing with the source issues like in Spain just ends up with a new class of illegal immigrants. Immigrants decrease wages in those black labor parts as it is an artificially restricted pool of work with an ever increasing pool of workers. This decreases wages.
We have articial internal restrictions, difficulty of moving needing initial capital in Europe, commuting having natural limits etc so you dont need them because they exist.
I think here in the US our terminal state is that we'll end up being Brazil in North America. If we're lucky, the population will continue to sort itself into red and blue states according to political preferences, and the sheer size of our landmass will thus allow certain conservative regions of the country to remain nice enough places to live. That's my hope for my daughter and (hopefully) her grandchildren and on down the line.
May be it's because nobody like selfish people. You can't trust them. They wouldn't hesitate sell you whenever it benefit them just like they did to similar people like them. They can't even empathize with people who have the same struggles as them.
Also I wish people like you would get deported ( 're-immigrated') by white supremacists when they come to power.
This is a great post. I’m myself a expat from a third world country and for me, the most surprising thing is how people debating immigration in the first world have a terrible understanding of how people from the countries immigrants usually come from think. There’s this fantasy about immigrants fleeing from danger and abject poverty in search of a safe heaven when that’s only a small share of immigration. Most of it is a rational economic decision of moving to a place that pays better, combined with a culture of always exploiting every possibility for personal gain that’s widespread in most of the third world. Add in the mix the mimetic effect of social networks. Once you’ve seen how people live in the fist world, people feel entitled to that lifestyle. If one spend enough time with immigrants, will notice how people start to feel entitled to live there.
Most third world immigrants are not poor victims fleeing desperate situations, but are drawn from the middle and lower-middle class of their countries (the lower classes don’t even have resources or the mental energy to pursue this move in most cases).
I think understanding the third world mentality strengths your argument against mass migration. If you are someone who has lived in a low-trust society and moved to a high trust and you are discerning enough to understand these differences, you tend to view high -trust society as very precious and the need to preserve it as of the highest importance. Most people who have always lived in high-trust society tend to take it for granted. Nothing worries more a shrewd immigrant than the prospect of the country he moved to becoming like the country he left.
The opinions of people who vote obviously count more than those who don’t but I think many black people are silently or not so silently into the deportations. I saw a black guy I know telling the black guys he knows who converted to Islam that he hopes Arabs enslave them. A college educated black woman is more likely to vote and less likely to voice that sentiment but the coalition between black people and other minorities is not as strong as the DNC would like.
I dont disagree, I put a small tangent about Trump having opened a way to capture those exact people, but nativist/racist forces acting against it.
Naturalized immgrants are very temperamentaly conservative and it is strange that the conservative party doesn cater to them, the quote you restacked is exactly about this feeling. It doesnt strike anyone as strange because we are used to it but when you look at it, the immigrant-progressive coalition is far from a natural one.
The upper class in this country only hangs out with immigrants who are loaded and parrot the very talking points that allow them to integrate into high progressive society. I don’t think it’s that strange. Middle and lower class white conservatives have been pointing this out for decades but they are dismissed by virtue of not being high class or progressive.
At least in the US context part of the progressive pitch is that they get to join their racial spoils system. This requires they adopt a permanent oppressed class label and creates an additional extractive dynamic exacerbating the problems you laid out in this piece. There's even a similar collective action failure. For each individual immigrant it's beneficial to take the race spoils but on the whole it hurts the system.
It is plainly true: migrants are the first to suffer the consequences of the invasion set in motion in 2015; the inflection point of a globalist experiment of border dissolution toward populations from Africa and the Islamic world, especially Syria/Afghanistan...
What followed was not mere migration, but a massive demographic rupture; a symbolic break with the very idea of the border itself. And this rupture became symbolic capital, aggressively exploited by progressive, left-liberal, globalist elites as a weapon to impose a universalist worldview. A quasi-messianic ideology: the “open society” elevated into dogma.
Transplanted onto a Europe still structured by the nation-state, this model has imploded: there is no way they can integrate "them" in the European societies.
These flows were never organized around real labor demand. "They" functioned as symbolic capital; not as living labor power, scarcely even as concrete human integration...but as gross political ammunition for a project that has now exhausted itself.
This is not about being “anti-immigrant": that only works in the populist "fantasy". That label is a form of symbolic violence meant to silence critique...
The real issue is restoring the primacy of social reality: allowing society and the labor market to articulate their actual, material need for immigration, rather than imposing an ideological quasi-messianic multi-ratial spectacle.
I would not say universalist as much globalist, universalism would mean applying a set of rules to everyone which is clearly not the case.
This is so true "allowing society and the labor market to articulate their actual, material need for immigration, rather than imposing an ideological quasi-messianic multi-racial spectacle. "
It left me mildly bewildered, and I'm not completely sure what to think about it. But my take-away was "Of course immigrants (in France) learn French, how wouldn't they, but don't you dare check if they actually have learned it!!"
I watched it, I am not surprised from the part of Linguisticae, he is part of the French left-wing group of channels. I used to be a huge fan of his when younger but he became more biased with time.
I find the French state to be retarded around the language issue, it should be more rational but they are enacting these incoherent policies to show they are tough on crime. Linguisticae's strongest argument is: people dont have that time to learn French which is correct, but the better question is why they are here if they don't speak French or aren't willing to learn it under 2 years.
What’s going wrong in the West isn’t primarily economics, ideology, or bad people. It’s a collision between human psychology and a system that refuses to acknowledge it.
Humans are continuity-bound. They attach to place, people, inheritance, and the sense that what they are part of continues through time. When that continuity weakens rapidly and irreversibly, people experience grief. Not anger first—grief. Loss. Demoralisation.
The modern West has decided that this kind of loss is either imaginary or immoral to acknowledge. Continuity is treated as suspicious. Mourning is taboo. So grief becomes unsayable.
Once grief is unsayable, managerial language takes over: statistics, processes, reassurances. That’s Language 1. It sounds fake because it refuses to name what people feel they’ve lost. Over time, belief drains away. Management doesn’t lose an argument—it just stops being trusted.
Into that vacuum rushes Language 2: accusation. Betrayal. Exposure. Punishment. This language feels honest because it names causality and allows emotional discharge. It selects for intensity, moral absolutism, and escalation. It cannot close. It can only accuse again. It dissolves legitimacy faster than it builds anything.
There is a third language—continuity. Call it civilisational stewardship. It treats loss as tragedy rather than crime, restores dignity to restraint, and allows mourning without enemies. It’s the only language that can close the loop. But it has been morally tabooed, largely for historical reasons. So it has no elite sponsors.
Elites see all this. They are not stupid. But they are conflict-averse, institutionally constrained, and morally overextended. They fear accusation more than decay. Lacking a legitimate closing language, they default to denial, appeasement, and ritual submission. Sometimes they even feel relief or meaning in the submission—it buys temporary safety.
Demographic change is the core pf the crisis. Loss without language exacerbates it; benefit without reciprocity too. Grief is denied; guilt is deflected. Anger and entitlement appear as normal human defenses. None of this requires bad intent.
A scapegoat—Trump—temporarily stabilised the system by absorbing accusation that would otherwise have turned inward. That bought time. It didn’t solve anything.
The core error is deeper: the West tried to abolish tragedy from its official language. It tried to run a civilisation as if people were interchangeable procedural units. Tragedy didn’t disappear. It went underground. Grief without language ferments. Guilt without reciprocity hardens. Authority without ownership decays into ritual.
There is a narrow escape hatch: acknowledge loss without scapegoating, restore agency through real limits and reversal, dignify continuity without hatred, and allow mourning to close rather than metastasise. No major elite bloc is pushing for this, because it breaks the moral settlement they depend on and creates immediate personal risk.
So the system delays. Delay makes the eventual settlement harsher.
This isn’t about villains. It’s about humans being human, and systems pretending they aren’t.
I would accept this argument in an Educational system which is good, efficient and achieves its outcomes, not the case of France except for a few elite systems, and because I have seen first hand the impact of education on the outcomes of people I still see it as a major way to solve the issues. Tutoring kids and showing the example that you can be something other than a drug dealer or rapper and still be cool, to a kid in an undeserved neighbourhood as impacts.
Indeed they were, but their kids werent. The solution should have been to never allow them to bring their families, but given we are well past that point, other solutions need to be brought forward
Buddy you are not familiar with lower class natives... But for the younger gens the role models are youtubers and streamers, which is better in my opinion.
AfD immigration policy is pretty nuanced and sort of technocratic, from what I've seen discussed. They can't do much if any theatrical opposition, because of highly restrictive political speech laws and an establishment that isn't above making shit up to try to ban them. And an ideologically captured media landscape and mainstream. They've been frozen out of power since their founding.
We haven't even had a rightwing party in power, since Merkel turned the conservatives hard left in policy.
> European far-right parties deliberately maintain theatrical opposition while avoiding actual restriction when governing (Meloni importing 100,000 workers, Wilders accomplishing nothing, British Conservatives presiding over record immigration) because theyre edging societys momentum toward the point when mass indiscriminate remigration becomes politically viable. They require the crisis to worsen until wholesale deportation (including of integrated, productive immigrants) enters mainstream discourse which we are heading towards.
I've considered this conspiratorial theory before. I don't think it's true, though. The more plausible explanation in my view is that most European states are not actually sovereign, and most elected populist leaders in that continent have their hands tied by an authoritarian bureaucratic administrative super-state that relies on a permanently underpaid underclass to keep the "economy" (read: entitlements) solvent.
Also, you've abstracted away the particular issues surrounding Muslim migration. You mentioned them -- FGM, consanguinous marriages, etc. -- but failed to point out that these issues are unique to Muslim populations. I'm not arguing that all of the problems of mass immigration are uniquely caused by Muslims, but there are some problems that are unique to Muslims, and it's important to be cognizant of that.
I agree with the structural assessment, I added “schizo pet theory“ because it feds my conspiratorial mind but the real reason is the ECHR and the myriad of systems the EU has put in place that constrain any real reform.
You are correct in pointing it out, I didnt explicitly mention it as I thought of this piece as a continuation of the Muslim immigratio one. European immigration is largely Muslim in nature (Arab/Black) with pockets of SEA and Latinos, so most dysfunctionlities are directly tied to that. FGM is an African issue for example, it is a non existent problem amongst Maghrebis or Turks which are the larger populations in France/Germany.
I like your piece, Asmy, but keep in mind that the "new" EU member states don't have nearly as much Muslim immigration. I'm an immigrant in the Czech Republic myself. I am originally from the Balkans, but most immigrants (from outside of EU) are Ukrainian, with a distant 2nd/3rd being Vietnamese and Russian (not sure in which order). That may change in the future (to be seen), but that's how it is at the moment.
That is true, I will add this caveat at the end, Kaiser Bauch talks much about it. I think Central/Eastern european countries are doing good because they are still below the threshold of integration. Going from the Balkans to Czech republic which is in the same cultural sphere, you probably also have education and/or skills because Yugoslavia had the socialist education mindset where vagrancy was not allowed.
I will from now on refer to Western European immigration to not group the new EU states which dont have these issues (for now) but it will all depend on how they integrate people. 2nd gen Ukranians being the lumpenproletariat in Czechia or Poland in 2045 is not gonna be a nice problem to have either.
Right. There is a serious possibility that CZ/Poland will simply not be able to integrate Ukrainians at scale, leading to serious problems. Mind you, it's also possible that the Ukrainians in question will not actually stay (at scale) but will migrate further West.
There is already a precedent in that, many Moroccans/Arabs in Spain and Italy migrated elsewhere after the Eurozone crisis between 2011-2014. But those who migrated self-selected as the good ones, migrating (as you probably now) is very expensive and requires some initial capital, mindset and skills to find work.
If Europe doesn't want Muslim mass immigration they shouldn't have invaded and destabilized a lot of middle eastern countries.
Take Denmark. They jumped to participate in Iraqi war. They bombed Libya in 2011. Supplied a lot of military aid to Israel. Intervened in Syrian war. Don't forget Afghanistan. After all these wars they don't want to take in immigrants from all these destabilized countries.
If not for western intervention there wouldn't be any Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeeda, Iranian mullah regime or Hamas. The whole middle east would be a lot more secular and peaceful.
Don't even talk about climate change and how middle east is the most affected region and how the west predominantly caused the climate change.
This is why I support mass immigration of Muslims to Europe.
Ok but the top immigration nation by sources are:
- Morocco, which was never invaded
- Algeria, which had a civil war that no western country provoked
- Turkey, which also was involved on the Syrian war and thus got immigration
- African countries whose dysfunction is independent of war, and resulting from post-colonial corrupt elites
Afghanistan and Iraq were mainly America’s war which many great countries choose to sit out (France/Germany). There are almost no Lybians in Europe.
These are all classical points, climate west was not made by the West but by humans overall. Even if no western intervention happened the Middle East would have fallen to illiberal and fundamentalist forces because of independent reasons, Western intervention is undeserved but it just hastened an existing problem.
By this logic Oman should take all the immigrants from Tanzania because of spavery, Morocco all West Africans and China should open up to unlimited SEA immigration
Where's your list from? For what countries? For entire EU Syria and Afghanistan are the prime locations illegal immigrants are from.
"Middle East would have fallen to illiberal and fundamentalist forces because of independent reasons"
Do you really think Taliban would have come to rule Afghanistan even if US didn't fund Mujahideen? Do you think ISIS would have come to existence even if US didn't invade Iraq? Israel funded Hamas for decades against secular organizations like PLO and PFPL.
"climate west was not made by the West but by humans overall"
>Historical cumulative CO2 emissions are highly disproportionate to current population sizes. While the United States and European Union comprise only about 10% of the world's current population, they are responsible for approximately 40% of cumulative historical emissions.
While they are significantly resistant combatting climate change. Look at all the far right parties who are climate change deniers.
Westerners can't even reduce their beef consumption or air travel a bit for the sake of climate.
>Afghanistan and Iraq were mainly America’s war which many great countries choose to sit out (France/Germany).
They participated in Afghan war. Still supplied weapons to USA for Iraq war. Many countries like Poland, UK, Denmark, Italy participated in these wars.
"By this logic Oman should take all the immigrants from Tanzania because of spavery"
They should, f'ing imperial puppets.
If we treated you so badly back in the day, what makes you think we'll treat you better when you get here?
"Westerners are scumbags; I must move my family to live with them" doesn't strike me as a high IQ take.
I hope they reject your transparent attempt at emotional blackmail and send you all back.
Well Germany didn't and is infamous for self-sacrificing eco-death cult policies. So that sure as shit doesn't matter.
There are no "far right" parties in power in Europe. Meloni's fdl is not "far right at all. In the grand scheme of things they are centre left at most.
Really solid breakdown on the integration throttle concept. The distiction between individual benefit and systemic collapse is soemthing people miss constantly. I moved cities last year and saw similiar dynamics play out with rapid gentrification where early movers benefited but at-scale destroyed what made the place attractive. Good framing tbh.
Yeah, we are surrounded by tragedies of commons where individual benefit/systemic problem are constant.
Super informative. It sounds like the problem in Europe vs. the US, Australia, and Canada's quite distinct due to selection effects, and I've become convinced that the US is less able to deal with them even if the GOP runs the country for 12 years and keeps it within carrying capacity. Even though the Anglophone countries have immigration that skews skilled and upwardly mobile, they've institutionalized multiculturalism so thoroughly for generations to combat their original sins (stolen land, plus slavery in the US case) through affirmative action, ethnic heritage months, ethnic studies curricula, etc and present such racialized narratives of history in school that it incentivizes immigrant populations to distance themselves from the preexisting mainstream. History is framed as the story of whites coming to the New World, butchering the indigenous people, oppressing black people, and mistreating the trickle of Asians and others who managed to slip through their respective immigration restrictions. As a result, every nonwhite is lumped into the oppressed side of the oppressor-oppressed divide, and the edge cases like Arabs and Persians have been lobbying to get reclassified as nonwhite so that they can cash in on the diversity industry. Hence, Europe seems able to integrate upwardly mobile immigrant populations like Vietnamese, whereas in America the upwardly mobile ones like Indians, Asians, and MENAs often end up embracing political multiculturalism the most (Saira Rao, Michelle Wu, Rashida Tlaib, and so on) and form racial advocacy groups like AAAJ.
Thanks for the compliment ^^
Yeah, I think my beating drum with this post and his brother (On Muslim immigration) is that European immigration and Anglo one are completely different beasts that usually get lumped together.
Thanks for the Anglo context, this is very enriching and I didnt know even Asians adopted the victim mentality.
Bravo.
I don’t think the rights primary problem with immigrants is restrictionist. Surely a decade of Trump proves that. Border counties in Texas are 90% Hispanic and vote red now. Governors in Florida and Texas are busing immigrants away and calling them a bunch of criminals and they are winning landslides. I think immigrants understand the “it’s ok to pull up the ladder after me” thing.
I think the primary problem the right has is its against welfare. Most immigrants are heavier than Average welfare users. Romney lost immigrants hard because he opposed Obamacare.
Trump up until recently totally conceded to the welfare state. Hispanics voted for him because they liked the economy of 2019 better than 2024.
If he losses I think it will be because of his cuts to ACA, Medicaid, and Medicare advantage that bring him down. The median immigrant is definitely pro-gibs. Desire for welfare > conservative cultural believes.
On the high end Asians generally want to assimilate to blue state professional norms to get ahead. If they gotta claim there are 12 genders to get into Harvard, so be it. They are also more naturally conformist and deferential to authority, which are leftist traits these days.
I don't even think Asians these days are doing it to get ahead. Asian libs are genuinely convinced they're victims, which is why so many second gen Asians get accused of "acting black" growing up because they get into black pop culture out of a sense of alienation from whites. In grad school I knew Singaporean bureaucrats who were just in the US for two years and who were worried about getting hate crimed by whites before arrival. Miss Singapore wore a StopAsianHate dress one year, and on Twitter you can see Asians in Asia talk about how racist they think the US and Australia are. In Vietnam a friend asked me whether I had difficulty growing up in the US due to being half-Korean. Many already believe this stuff before even immigrating.
A man believes what he has to to make a living. What Asians adopt cynically quickly becomes what they actually believe authentically.
There is a phrase "Jews are just like everyone else, only more so". The same is true of Asians. In a world where not having children is the elite consensus, Jews and Asians have few children. In a world where having more children is the consensus (Israel), jews have more children.
If we whites solve the fertility problem I suppose Asians might follow us. In the meantime please understand that IOUs from the US treasury aren't going to make up for not having children.
Sorry, labour protectionism is bad and the abolition of immigration restrictions would prevent immigrants from being forced to accept lower wages due to being dependent on their employer for continued residence. Also the easy way to crush "welfare dependency" is to abolish welfare.
If people took the "immigrants decrease wages" objection seriously, they'd advocate for internal passports, restrictions on commuting, and so on to stop wage decreases due to internal migration. The fact that nobody does this may indicate something.
Europe has more strict rules around labour which creates a black market for labor which makes unregulated labor very attractive overall. You could argue this is a distorsion of labor laws which would be correct, but these are still the consequences of such laws and given their popularity I see little possible reform.
Legalization of immigrants without dealing with the source issues like in Spain just ends up with a new class of illegal immigrants. Immigrants decrease wages in those black labor parts as it is an artificially restricted pool of work with an ever increasing pool of workers. This decreases wages.
We have articial internal restrictions, difficulty of moving needing initial capital in Europe, commuting having natural limits etc so you dont need them because they exist.
Labor protectionism may be bad for GDP. But it's not bad for the people, individuals and classes, whose jobs are being protected.
I think here in the US our terminal state is that we'll end up being Brazil in North America. If we're lucky, the population will continue to sort itself into red and blue states according to political preferences, and the sheer size of our landmass will thus allow certain conservative regions of the country to remain nice enough places to live. That's my hope for my daughter and (hopefully) her grandchildren and on down the line.
May be it's because nobody like selfish people. You can't trust them. They wouldn't hesitate sell you whenever it benefit them just like they did to similar people like them. They can't even empathize with people who have the same struggles as them.
Also I wish people like you would get deported ( 're-immigrated') by white supremacists when they come to power.
Real and true, please dont forget to personally call them to deport me, preferably to Argentina !
This is a great post. I’m myself a expat from a third world country and for me, the most surprising thing is how people debating immigration in the first world have a terrible understanding of how people from the countries immigrants usually come from think. There’s this fantasy about immigrants fleeing from danger and abject poverty in search of a safe heaven when that’s only a small share of immigration. Most of it is a rational economic decision of moving to a place that pays better, combined with a culture of always exploiting every possibility for personal gain that’s widespread in most of the third world. Add in the mix the mimetic effect of social networks. Once you’ve seen how people live in the fist world, people feel entitled to that lifestyle. If one spend enough time with immigrants, will notice how people start to feel entitled to live there.
Most third world immigrants are not poor victims fleeing desperate situations, but are drawn from the middle and lower-middle class of their countries (the lower classes don’t even have resources or the mental energy to pursue this move in most cases).
I think understanding the third world mentality strengths your argument against mass migration. If you are someone who has lived in a low-trust society and moved to a high trust and you are discerning enough to understand these differences, you tend to view high -trust society as very precious and the need to preserve it as of the highest importance. Most people who have always lived in high-trust society tend to take it for granted. Nothing worries more a shrewd immigrant than the prospect of the country he moved to becoming like the country he left.
The opinions of people who vote obviously count more than those who don’t but I think many black people are silently or not so silently into the deportations. I saw a black guy I know telling the black guys he knows who converted to Islam that he hopes Arabs enslave them. A college educated black woman is more likely to vote and less likely to voice that sentiment but the coalition between black people and other minorities is not as strong as the DNC would like.
I dont disagree, I put a small tangent about Trump having opened a way to capture those exact people, but nativist/racist forces acting against it.
Naturalized immgrants are very temperamentaly conservative and it is strange that the conservative party doesn cater to them, the quote you restacked is exactly about this feeling. It doesnt strike anyone as strange because we are used to it but when you look at it, the immigrant-progressive coalition is far from a natural one.
The upper class in this country only hangs out with immigrants who are loaded and parrot the very talking points that allow them to integrate into high progressive society. I don’t think it’s that strange. Middle and lower class white conservatives have been pointing this out for decades but they are dismissed by virtue of not being high class or progressive.
At least in the US context part of the progressive pitch is that they get to join their racial spoils system. This requires they adopt a permanent oppressed class label and creates an additional extractive dynamic exacerbating the problems you laid out in this piece. There's even a similar collective action failure. For each individual immigrant it's beneficial to take the race spoils but on the whole it hurts the system.
It is plainly true: migrants are the first to suffer the consequences of the invasion set in motion in 2015; the inflection point of a globalist experiment of border dissolution toward populations from Africa and the Islamic world, especially Syria/Afghanistan...
What followed was not mere migration, but a massive demographic rupture; a symbolic break with the very idea of the border itself. And this rupture became symbolic capital, aggressively exploited by progressive, left-liberal, globalist elites as a weapon to impose a universalist worldview. A quasi-messianic ideology: the “open society” elevated into dogma.
Transplanted onto a Europe still structured by the nation-state, this model has imploded: there is no way they can integrate "them" in the European societies.
These flows were never organized around real labor demand. "They" functioned as symbolic capital; not as living labor power, scarcely even as concrete human integration...but as gross political ammunition for a project that has now exhausted itself.
This is not about being “anti-immigrant": that only works in the populist "fantasy". That label is a form of symbolic violence meant to silence critique...
The real issue is restoring the primacy of social reality: allowing society and the labor market to articulate their actual, material need for immigration, rather than imposing an ideological quasi-messianic multi-ratial spectacle.
I would not say universalist as much globalist, universalism would mean applying a set of rules to everyone which is clearly not the case.
This is so true "allowing society and the labor market to articulate their actual, material need for immigration, rather than imposing an ideological quasi-messianic multi-racial spectacle. "
A good argument rendered poorly. Stinks a bit AI.
ESL syndrome, all arguments and ideas are mine, arrangement and structure is edited with the help of AI. Syntax and style are all mine tho.
https://open.substack.com/pub/marcusolang/p/im-kenyan-i-dont-write-like-chatgpt
Asmy, semi-related to your post, if you have the time, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nomFWC97qRI
It left me mildly bewildered, and I'm not completely sure what to think about it. But my take-away was "Of course immigrants (in France) learn French, how wouldn't they, but don't you dare check if they actually have learned it!!"
I watched it, I am not surprised from the part of Linguisticae, he is part of the French left-wing group of channels. I used to be a huge fan of his when younger but he became more biased with time.
I find the French state to be retarded around the language issue, it should be more rational but they are enacting these incoherent policies to show they are tough on crime. Linguisticae's strongest argument is: people dont have that time to learn French which is correct, but the better question is why they are here if they don't speak French or aren't willing to learn it under 2 years.
Here’s my grand theory of politics now:
What’s going wrong in the West isn’t primarily economics, ideology, or bad people. It’s a collision between human psychology and a system that refuses to acknowledge it.
Humans are continuity-bound. They attach to place, people, inheritance, and the sense that what they are part of continues through time. When that continuity weakens rapidly and irreversibly, people experience grief. Not anger first—grief. Loss. Demoralisation.
The modern West has decided that this kind of loss is either imaginary or immoral to acknowledge. Continuity is treated as suspicious. Mourning is taboo. So grief becomes unsayable.
Once grief is unsayable, managerial language takes over: statistics, processes, reassurances. That’s Language 1. It sounds fake because it refuses to name what people feel they’ve lost. Over time, belief drains away. Management doesn’t lose an argument—it just stops being trusted.
Into that vacuum rushes Language 2: accusation. Betrayal. Exposure. Punishment. This language feels honest because it names causality and allows emotional discharge. It selects for intensity, moral absolutism, and escalation. It cannot close. It can only accuse again. It dissolves legitimacy faster than it builds anything.
There is a third language—continuity. Call it civilisational stewardship. It treats loss as tragedy rather than crime, restores dignity to restraint, and allows mourning without enemies. It’s the only language that can close the loop. But it has been morally tabooed, largely for historical reasons. So it has no elite sponsors.
Elites see all this. They are not stupid. But they are conflict-averse, institutionally constrained, and morally overextended. They fear accusation more than decay. Lacking a legitimate closing language, they default to denial, appeasement, and ritual submission. Sometimes they even feel relief or meaning in the submission—it buys temporary safety.
Demographic change is the core pf the crisis. Loss without language exacerbates it; benefit without reciprocity too. Grief is denied; guilt is deflected. Anger and entitlement appear as normal human defenses. None of this requires bad intent.
A scapegoat—Trump—temporarily stabilised the system by absorbing accusation that would otherwise have turned inward. That bought time. It didn’t solve anything.
The core error is deeper: the West tried to abolish tragedy from its official language. It tried to run a civilisation as if people were interchangeable procedural units. Tragedy didn’t disappear. It went underground. Grief without language ferments. Guilt without reciprocity hardens. Authority without ownership decays into ritual.
There is a narrow escape hatch: acknowledge loss without scapegoating, restore agency through real limits and reversal, dignify continuity without hatred, and allow mourning to close rather than metastasise. No major elite bloc is pushing for this, because it breaks the moral settlement they depend on and creates immediate personal risk.
So the system delays. Delay makes the eventual settlement harsher.
This isn’t about villains. It’s about humans being human, and systems pretending they aren’t.
"educational underperformance"
Maybe they just can't perform. Have you thought of that?
Also: These people are needed as manual labourers, servents in low added value jobs. Which begs the question: WHY would you want to educate them?
I would accept this argument in an Educational system which is good, efficient and achieves its outcomes, not the case of France except for a few elite systems, and because I have seen first hand the impact of education on the outcomes of people I still see it as a major way to solve the issues. Tutoring kids and showing the example that you can be something other than a drug dealer or rapper and still be cool, to a kid in an undeserved neighbourhood as impacts.
Indeed they were, but their kids werent. The solution should have been to never allow them to bring their families, but given we are well past that point, other solutions need to be brought forward
"other then drug dealer or rapper"
Not exactly European (White) role models.
Buddy you are not familiar with lower class natives... But for the younger gens the role models are youtubers and streamers, which is better in my opinion.
Still correct observation
Notes I had were:
There's 2 types or functions to immigration often intertwined.
1. Cheap Labour
2. Elite assimilation/leverage
Putting an enemy elite's kids through Harvard gives you leverage.
Especially, if many of them live in the West while parents are at home.
---
Immigration helps liberalism survive by displacing the movers/shakers (revolutionaries).
It removes the problem (ambitious) population from the "third world".
It uses these people as an often higher-skilled battering ram against the local workers.
The 2nd/3rd gen often end up ghettoized like you said or assimilated.
Thus, reinforcing liberalism back home as well.
---
Jim's blog speaks of a captured elite of how Islamic politicians in Europe
Signal traditionalism to their own kind via let's say a Beard.
Progressivism to whites via Idk showing up at a pride rally.
---
While, you're right that revanchism prevents immigrants from joining RW parties.
This is also the RW/cuckservative risk where you end up too welcoming.
With anti-immigration becoming a taboo topic.
Part of this is because immigrants themselves may be more likely to enter politics vs 2nd gen.
Immigrants are more willing to move to random locations within the new country or new spaces.
2nd Gen often settles down and "nativizes".
To the immigrant the whole country is one unit, and they've already moved so far so it's w/e
AfD immigration policy is pretty nuanced and sort of technocratic, from what I've seen discussed. They can't do much if any theatrical opposition, because of highly restrictive political speech laws and an establishment that isn't above making shit up to try to ban them. And an ideologically captured media landscape and mainstream. They've been frozen out of power since their founding.
We haven't even had a rightwing party in power, since Merkel turned the conservatives hard left in policy.