undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmytailorisrich2y ago0 comments

The topic has not been "hijacked by right-wing firebrands". It's just that they are the only ones still raising the issue openly.

Somehow the mainstream parties and especially the left have shifted from anti-racism to a blanket and absolute "immigration is good" and "all refugees welcome" consensus (and not only that but in some cases a stance that more diveristy should actually be encouraged) and anyone raising concerns is indeed labelled as "right-wing" or "far-right", which is not helpful at all.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

arp2422y ago· 1 in thread

So let's stick with Netherlands: if you want to literally ban a religion (Wilders) then you're a right-wing firebrand. If you subscribe to all sort of outlandish conspiracy theories (Baudet) then you're a right-wing firebrand (and also completely insane). These people are not helpful for any constructive debate.

And by and large it's not like centre- or even left-wing parties are in favour of "all refugees welcome" or "[all] immigration is good". Actually Netherlands has had a broadly right-wing government for about 20 years now, which has generally been against immigration.

And if we look at France, Germany, UK, then the situation is roughly similar (with differences in details and nuance, of course).

mytailorisrichOP2y ago

If we look at the facts and the numbers it is de facto what I wrote in my previous comment, though. There is no effective restriction on either so the logical conclusion is that it is indeed the case.

If I take the example of the UK: arguably right-wing government for 14 years with grass root Conservative backers against immigration. Well, last year the UK had the highest legal immigration on record.

Considering the popularity of Wilders in the Netherlands perhaps the government did not actually do anything to limit non-EU immigration, either...

If the people feel taken for a ride this cannot end well.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse