Migration policies are failing, migrants are strugling - ‘broken’ national immigration system

Europeans speak out.
Many are frustrated with migration in EU.

 

There are certain things in her speech that I can agree with, but having looked at her X account, I am convinced that there are much better defenders of limits on immigration. You don’t need conspiratorial thinking and Putin’s apologetics to make a case for much lower immigration in the West. Look at these other quotes from her X/Twitter account: https://twitter.com/EvaVlaar/status/1755990743401758860

"Putin's 30 minute account of Russia's history was incredibly interesting, not just because of its current political relevance, but especially because it directly highlights the fact that not a single Western leader today could give such a detailed historical account of their own nation the way Putin did."

Seriously? Have you checked the sources on that account?

“To get back to the Russia-Ukraine war: You can dislike Putin all you want, but there is no denying that he is in it for his own people. He's in it for Russia and he has a clear idea of what Russia is and what it stands for. And the real question is, who are the ones really perpertuating this war if the CIA was behind the Ukrainian regime change in 2014 and a peace deal was reached in 2022, but rejected at the last minute because of Boris Johnson's interference? Is Russia really the expansionist aggressor its been made out to be, or has the bear just been poked too often?”

If that last sentence isn’t an apology for Putin’s aggression, I am not sure how else to characterize it. She’s saying: should we really see Russia as an expansionist aggressor, casting doubt on whether Russia is the aggressor in the conflict. Really? It was only made out to be an aggressor by Western media? When you combine that with the CIA-driven regime change story and “poking the bear” references, it sounds like something taken right out of a standard Russian propaganda outlet.

 

Lerner's sources are, I assume, usually just copied them here from social media. They're typically very unreliable and a waste of time. But thanks for the summary.

 

Thanks Bill. I heard about this particular conference where the speech was made, but lerner still needs to do a better job with the sources that he provides.

 

It's never binary, so I agree with many points she made but also quite a few that I disagree.
Yet the sentiment she expressed is on the rise.
This is not a fake video, this event took place.
One may disagree with what she said or agree.
I watched original speech that was on main TV channel but with translation to Hebrew and posted here but I replaced it here with this one.
Source didn't matter, state TV sponsored channel or some unknown YouTube channel.
The issue is that migrants that are not asimilatiing but actually terrorizing locals who are on the rise.
What are this countries thinking they are destroying their heritage and identity and safety. Terrible future

 

For the most part, it's the the political leadership in Europe that thinks this way. If you look at the European population, the outlook isn't very popular. Here's a new survey;

https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-05-07/seven-out-of-10-europeans-believe-their-country-takes-in-too-many-immigrants.html

Europeans view immigration with increasing suspicion. Seven out of 10 Europeans believe that their country takes in too many migrants, according to a survey carried out by BVA Xsight for ARTE Europe Weekly, a project led by the French-German TV channel ARTE GEIE and which EL PAÍS has participated in, as part of the countdown to the European elections in June. The survey shows that 85% of respondents feel the European Union needs to take more action to combat irregular migration. And only 39% believe that Europe needs immigration today.

These are some of the conclusions from a survey carried out online between March 27 and April 9 in the 27 member states, where 22,726 people over 15 years of age were interviewed, with a representative sample from each country. In addition to El PAÍS, the media organizations Gazeta Wyborcza, Internazionale, Ir, Kathimerini, Le Soir and Telex collaborated in the survey.

 

Since the war in Ukraine, many Ukrainians migrated to EU countries and the West. Unlike the Islamists and Jihadists, Ukrainian migrants, refugees, many plan to return to Ukraine, and the majority are not viewed negatively, not posing any threat to the countries that are helping them. Unlike that very different mentality of migrants from Arab and African countries, not all but large % are not asimilating, instead creating those no go zones.
You will not find any Ukrainian no-go zones in EU. While Muslims are welcome, Jihadists and Islamists and criminals are not.

 

Quotes from the following article: https://thehub.ca/2024/04/20/howard-anglin-theres-a-better-way-to-do-politics/

“Canadian politics is almost entirely superficial. Perhaps this is true of politics everywhere, or even most politics through history, but if true (and I don’t think it is) that is cause for regret rather than consolation. Our politics is superficial because we have insulated it from first principles.”

“We hear often about “evidence-based” policy, but evidence cannot be the starting point of policy or its foundation. Evidence can help you reach your goal effectively, but only after you’ve determined both where you want to go and why you want to get there. For that you need an understanding of the basic goods of human life and the application of practical reason. If your goal has not been reasoned intelligently from first principles, evidence is useless. Irrelevant.”

“It is bad enough that we no longer speak in terms of the dictates of right reason, the natural law, the common good, the cardinal virtues, or even the morally emaciated principles of utilitarianism, but it is even worse that we rarely ever think in those terms anymore. Most of the time, the rightness of a preferred policy is assumed, not justified, and we skip to debating means without ever properly considering the ends.”

“Every field of public policy would benefit from a reconsideration from first principles, but I will note two that are currently top of mind for Canadians.” [housing and immigration].

“The second field is immigration, where our governments and the media too often think in terms of numbers instead of people. From business lobbyists, CEOs, and college and university presidents, we get a constant drumbeat for more, more, more. Sometimes politicians or their proxies will say we need more people to boost national growth and raise national GDP (though rarely GDP per capita). Almost never do we think more deeply than that.”

“These discussions of immigration policy talk about newcomers as if they were widgets, fungible parts in a machine rather than humans who will embed themselves into our society—or not. It is telling that this is quite different from the way most people experience immigration and talk about it in day-to-day life, where they rely on their immediate experience of individual newcomers, good and bad.”

“Normal people know intuitively that the difference between society and a machine is that in a society the identity of each person matters, not just their function. You can replace the parts of an engine regularly and it will be just fine, maybe even better. But you can’t simply swap out your neighbours every few weeks and call what you have a community.”

“If your town needs a new doctor, it can bring one in from somewhere else in Canada or another country. However, if in addition to performing his professional function, the new doctor does not also see himself as, and act as, a part of the community, you will have filled the role of doctor, but there still be a hole in the community. Immigration isn’t just about filling jobs, it’s about building a country.”

“No political philosopher going back to Aristotle has thought that citizens and foreigners are interchangeable, so that the people of one society may be swapped carelessly with those of another. Foreigners can be integrated into a society—Canada has shown this in the past—but they will also change it. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Change is an inevitable law of nature, but it’s not neutral. Some change is beneficial and other change is damaging, but it’s never indifferent.”

“Thinking about immigration policy in terms of first principles, you would start with the question, what makes a good polis? Then, how do citizens fit into and contribute to a politeia, the way of life in a polis? Finally, what makes a good citizen, a polites? Only then can you start to shape your immigration and integration policies. There is more to immigration than economics and more to citizenship than a passport, but our governments downplay the questions of how to select newcomers or how to turn non-Canadians into Canadians.”

“It will take serious people exercising prudential reason to ensure that future immigration occurs as successfully as the most successful examples of immigration in our past. This includes learning the lessons of history, assessing what is different today, deciding not just what numbers (though that is obviously important) but which persons will strengthen our society, and then determining how to identify them, how to attract them, and how to help them integrate when they arrive.”

“Whether it’s housing and immigration or family policy, pensions, education, taxes, or diplomacy, when you return to first principles you find yourself asking different and better questions that produce more relevant answers. And when you lose sight of first principles, you lose the means to shape politics. You are stuck with a constrained choice between whatever options land on your desk. That is choosing, not governing.”

 

This is the dangerous Venezuelan gang infiltrating the US that you probably know nothing about but should

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dangerous-venezuelan-gang-infiltrating-us-110048415.html

 

I think it's part of it but also as the immigration is a serious issue for the elections, and Pr. Biden is addressing the issue at the troubled borders.
It's in the news, and the article may help to help manage the damage among Latino voters.