The aspect where they do not integrate and stay in their ethnic groups, where they bring their religion, where they do not adopt local tradition and customs, when they refuse to learn the language properly, where they refuse to work legally but still enjoy the fruits of public services
Oh? I did not realize there were warlord armies rampaging through the countryside in hope of establishing dynastic Muslim rule. Pat yourself on the head for such an astute historic parallel.
Why would they rampage through the countryside when western countries let them in without a fight?
Immigration on Hacker News is like the dumbest topic here. Nobody considers any downsides of any sort, just lockstep agreement that it is a fundamental good.
Yet a single change to the behavior of Postgres will be met with wild, exuberant debate.
> Immigration on Hacker News is like the dumbest topic here
"Dumbest" wouldn't be the word I'd use here, considering the views on immigration are sharply divided by education level. I reckon HN has an overrepresentation of people with (at least) a college degree, relative to the general population.
I don't know, but I'm not deranged enough to say that Muslim immigrants in my country are part of an invading force. All the ones I know are quite nice, actually.
Personally, I care far more about the dehumanization of my fellow human beings than how open or closed the borders are.
but see, that's my point: you don't even have the ability to say what is good or bad migration. Ever. Because to do so would violate some religiously held viewpoint that you have that migration is always some inherent good and to say otherwise is some sort of blasphemy.
As I said above, I care far more about the dehumanization of my fellow human beings than how open or closed the borders are. (It's possible to have sensible and humane immigration policy along any point on that axis.) Slandering immigrants as "invaders" or "parasites" should be met with the harshest possible rebuke, if not outright prosecution for hate speech.
Better to have an economically stangnant country than tp have no country at all. The people make the country. We are not economic units to be moved around so that the line goes up. Immigration leads to erosion of a country.
Even if it's the same language, they do not integrate. They stay in their own social groups and economic groups, almost like a "parallel society". And they bring their religion, evangelical christianism, which is nothing like ours.
It's around 55–60% of immigrants who come from Spanish-speaking countries.
Also, this uses official numbers, which reflect a larger Spanish speaking share than there is in reality (as people from Spanish-speaking countries have more straightforward visa processes).
So the real percentage is probably much lower (as there are a lot of undocumented migrants. 1.2 million applied for "legalization").
Which is a political choice - not necessarily a resource problem. Germany, if any, would have the resources to help with integration but for decades most people and politicians were living in denial that people from other countries that came to Germany actually wanted to stay and _live_ there or were living in a world were state debt was seen as the devil's spawn.
Besides the mentioned comments Spanish speaking immigration is much more welcomed by radical right
AND
Germany had a lot of German speaking immigration from Eastern Europe. There are just no German speaking minorities left in other countries.
If you went to Japan in the 90’s, 00’s or 10’s, you’ll find the issue is that Japan still feels mostly the same. It’s a wonderful country, but post-Japan’s asset bubble and crash there’s been noticeably less change.
A country with narcissistic criminal as leader who damages the US science for decades, kills people by dismantling USAID. The raising costs because of his four-week-war against Iran doesn’t help either but damages the economy worldwide.
I didn't say I think so - I said in current discourse - e.g. this site and x.com. The narrative is that Europe is stagnant and US has pulled ahead, at least economically.
I think that can be consistent with Trump destroying the long term future of the country and the planet.
Which aspect is unsustainable?
The aspect where they do not integrate and stay in their ethnic groups, where they bring their religion, where they do not adopt local tradition and customs, when they refuse to learn the language properly, where they refuse to work legally but still enjoy the fruits of public services
I seem to recall some migration into Spain that eventually turned the peninsula into the Caliphate of Córdoba, which arguably wasn't very sustainable.
Oh? I did not realize there were warlord armies rampaging through the countryside in hope of establishing dynastic Muslim rule. Pat yourself on the head for such an astute historic parallel.
Why would they rampage through the countryside when western countries let them in without a fight?
Immigration on Hacker News is like the dumbest topic here. Nobody considers any downsides of any sort, just lockstep agreement that it is a fundamental good.
Yet a single change to the behavior of Postgres will be met with wild, exuberant debate.
> Immigration on Hacker News is like the dumbest topic here
"Dumbest" wouldn't be the word I'd use here, considering the views on immigration are sharply divided by education level. I reckon HN has an overrepresentation of people with (at least) a college degree, relative to the general population.
Ah, so these immigrants are indeed part of some sort of caliphate army — just one that was let in without a fight? Yes, that makes sense.
> Immigration on Hacker News is like the dumbest topic here.
Insert "We're All Trying To Find The Guy Who Did This" meme.
[flagged]
I don't know, but I'm not deranged enough to say that Muslim immigrants in my country are part of an invading force. All the ones I know are quite nice, actually.
Personally, I care far more about the dehumanization of my fellow human beings than how open or closed the borders are.
but see, that's my point: you don't even have the ability to say what is good or bad migration. Ever. Because to do so would violate some religiously held viewpoint that you have that migration is always some inherent good and to say otherwise is some sort of blasphemy.
I'm mocking your religious belief.
As I said above, I care far more about the dehumanization of my fellow human beings than how open or closed the borders are. (It's possible to have sensible and humane immigration policy along any point on that axis.) Slandering immigrants as "invaders" or "parasites" should be met with the harshest possible rebuke, if not outright prosecution for hate speech.
Pretty illuminating IMO. And it's enough to completely disregard your opinion on the matter. Because clearly you do not see this as a two-way road.
I'll listen up when you start railing against China for their restrictive immigration policies.
I think the immigration is what keeps Spain from turning into another Japan or Germany - a stagnant, overly old place stuck in time.
Better to have an economically stangnant country than tp have no country at all. The people make the country. We are not economic units to be moved around so that the line goes up. Immigration leads to erosion of a country.
And in Spain most immigrants are from Latin America with close enough culture and language to avoid most integration problems.
Even if it's the same language, they do not integrate. They stay in their own social groups and economic groups, almost like a "parallel society". And they bring their religion, evangelical christianism, which is nothing like ours.
I wouldn't say most.
It's around 55–60% of immigrants who come from Spanish-speaking countries.
Also, this uses official numbers, which reflect a larger Spanish speaking share than there is in reality (as people from Spanish-speaking countries have more straightforward visa processes).
So the real percentage is probably much lower (as there are a lot of undocumented migrants. 1.2 million applied for "legalization").
Germany has had an immense amount of immigration over the past couple decades.
Immigrants but not immigration because there aren’t enough resources to help all the people to integrate.
Which is a political choice - not necessarily a resource problem. Germany, if any, would have the resources to help with integration but for decades most people and politicians were living in denial that people from other countries that came to Germany actually wanted to stay and _live_ there or were living in a world were state debt was seen as the devil's spawn.
Besides the mentioned comments Spanish speaking immigration is much more welcomed by radical right AND Germany had a lot of German speaking immigration from Eastern Europe. There are just no German speaking minorities left in other countries.
Just came back from Japan and I found it vibrant and modern.
If you went to Japan in the 90’s, 00’s or 10’s, you’ll find the issue is that Japan still feels mostly the same. It’s a wonderful country, but post-Japan’s asset bubble and crash there’s been noticeably less change.
Change for the sake of change is what cancers are.
Why does it need to change?
Did you visit the countryside?
Japan has an aging problem and a big misogyny problem too.
Name the country and I will easy find the spots where it is not vibrant and modern, and then say "did you visit those?"
Say, I heard France has great cuisine, but I had street food in Paris and it was meh.
Doesn’t change facts about Japan‘s problems. In certain parts they are just less visible.
Except they don't seem to be an Isreali puppet state
[dead]
It seems in current discourse, turning a European country into another USA is a compliment.
Why do you thinks so?
A country with narcissistic criminal as leader who damages the US science for decades, kills people by dismantling USAID. The raising costs because of his four-week-war against Iran doesn’t help either but damages the economy worldwide.
I didn't say I think so - I said in current discourse - e.g. this site and x.com. The narrative is that Europe is stagnant and US has pulled ahead, at least economically.
I think that can be consistent with Trump destroying the long term future of the country and the planet.