If the idea of having a nation state with borders and citizens having input on immigration levels is considered "far-right", you already have a problem. The idea that this would not be the case would have been considered insane across the West thirty years ago.
You basically wrote my comment for me. Thanks. There is nothing far-right about acknowledging borders. Also, given the cost of supporting those newly arrived, and the increasing competition for jobs, housing, medical care and other resources, it seems extremely naive to allow unrestricted access to our country.
The problem is that when you ignore the existence of borders for a prolonged period of time it becomes normalized, making it more and more challenging to reverse policy. On the one hand sanctioning illegal immigration is a slap to the face both to those who have gone though an arduous immigration process already as well as those who are currently seeking to immigrate though "appropriate" channels. On the other hand, if you have a significant population of undocumented people who have crossed the boarder, it will be extremely onerous to track them down and deport them without there also being some collateral.
Like many other issues, illegal immigration has essentially just become another hot potato for most politicians to throw around. Until the potatoe receives a text to explode.
When European peoples first come to America, they segregated themselves into their own neighborhoods, Irish, Italian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc. This was what they had always done in the Old Country, for millennia…. so why wouldn’t they bring that here. Like people/cultures band together.
Now, in one generation, global elite Boomers have told EU countries that mass immigration like the USA has experienced is ‘good’ for them, which runs counter to how these people/cultures have organized themselves for all of their human history. America has imposed its ‘immigration value’ on Europe. The Englishman, German, Irishman and Frenchman are experiencing a strange sort of death as a result. I don’t see this changing in Europe until America changes or falls in influence. Hungary is going to continue to stick out as a nation state among the dying, because they are the one country in region still alive and not losing its historical, cultural and people identity. Because they don’t accept the ‘immigration is good’ argument from Boomer global elite. And this is why Victor Orban is vilified by the Left leaning press.
Sweden is now floating the idea to pay immigrants $34K to move out, because they see their mistake, and don't want to end up like UK/Germany/France:
I could be convinced otherwise but I see Trump as one of those New Yorkers who talks big and hyperbolically. In any case, I totally agree that his framing is not helpful. We don’t have to discuss whether the Springfield immigrants are eating dogs to discuss whether it might be just too much change for the local people. On the other hand, many millions of ordinary people have been trying to make this point for a long time . Now that Trump made the crazy dog comment people seem to be paying more attention to the issue. And that’s IMO a good thing
Your defintion of “far right” is deliberately vague.
Being a restrictionist on immigration isn’t inherently far right; but from an American perspective, the people leading the way on restrictionism tend to have *other* views that attract the label.
In the 2016 US presidential election cycle, Donald Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left both argued for a secure border. But Trump also called for blanket ban on Muslim entry to the US (link to a video of Trump saying this if you don't believe me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLgTF8FrYlU). This got him a lot of criticism, even from other conservative Republicans who were critical of Islamism, because banning a religious group would be blatantly unconstitutional. Some other prominent Trump supporters have argued that mass migration is a “Great Replacement” plot to replace the white population with brown people. Trump also told some nonwhite congresswomen who are native-born American citizens to “go back” to the “broken and crime infested” countries they came from instead of criticizing “our government,” with the implication that they are separate from true Americans. If I remember correctly, Trump is a 3rd generation American. But for--*ahem*--*some reason*, he sees himself as being inside the circle of true Americans and sees the congresswomen as outside the circle. Some other Republicans picked up on this, and criticized Trump at the time. Trump apologists will chalk this up to Trump "saying mean things" or having a "big mouth," but these were not offhanded insults, like calling someone fat. These were ideologically potent statements. Many immigration restrictionists, including on the right, are not supportive of these more extreme views.
Perhaps the "far right" label is applied too widely by some critics, but there is a "there" there. The “far right” is defined not necessarily by their immigration restrictionism, but by their other qualities, such as lesser loyalty to liberal norms.
I don’t think it was a blanket ban on Muslim countries. Wasn’t it a ban on select countries that supposedly support terrorism (obviously not including the US, haha)
Trump is not precise with his words—see eating dogs comment as an example of his hyperbolic characterization of how it’s hard for people to deal with newcomers with different values/customs. But to there point, I think it’s just far right people who are willing to admit that they prefer to admit immigrants who will assimilate (join the local public pool, have their girls on sports teams, etc) and being Muslim is a useful piece of information—setting aside whether it’s legal to consider someone’s religion .
Trump *was* precise with his words though. What do you think he meant when he said "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"?
I think there's a valid conversation to be had about assimilation that doesn't require us to support or make excuses for Trump. Extremists like Trump actually make this conversation *more* difficult to have, because restrictionism, which is not inherently illiberal or bigoted, gets branded by people who are actually illiberal and bigoted.
That was what he could enact legally, but that wasn't what he proposed. This is a 2015 video of Trump proposing "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" during one of his campaign speeches.
Why do you say Sahra Wagenknecht "seeks to suck the oxygen out of the right by advocating for a more restrictive stance on immigration". Maybe she just thinks the costs of the current level/type of immigration outweigh the benefits. And it's not a simple political strategy to win downscale voters.
Totally agree it's important to see the humanity in immigrants/migrants. But our elected leaders are supposed to represent our interests not the interests of human beings outside their jurisdiction. And pretty much everyone wants a border of some kind (i.e., not open borders) then it follows that our elected leaders are tasked with weighting the costs of benefits of different immigration policies on their constituents. Now obviously this doesn't happen or immigration would be far lower but it's just to point out that we have to identify costs and benefits if we aren't letting everyone in. And having low and loose standards on who gets in to wealthy countries not always good for people from other countries. Take a look at one of the free US national provider ID lookups and you'll see lots of doctors and nurses who were trained in public universities in countries experiencing poverty and health care provider shortages come to the US--the US gets a trained provider, and the provider gets lots of $, but what about the people whose tax dollars trained the provider or who just need medical care??
Yes, I believe Europe’s populist right is surging because European liberals are ignoring voters about immigration.
I am speaking from my own experience, not from any direct knowledge of European politics. Once upon a time, I myself voted for a hard right anti-immigration candidate because my tribe refused to get its head out of the sand on the issue.
America history is relatively short and rooted/based on continual 'demographic turnover'. First the English, then Irish, then Italians, then Mexicans, etc. Melting pot worked here. In Europe, they have ZERO historical experience with this kind of 'demographic turnover'. It's not part of their DNA. In fact, Europe history is to fight off/keep out foreign invaders. Boomer elites have ignored this history and said to EU nations 'do it like America has done'. But what worked for America doesn't necessarily work for Europe. It's elitist and naive to press this 'American value' onto Europe. It's killing their cultural and historical identity.
I think you are missing key points about both American and European histories. In America, much of that demographic expansion also coincided with territorial expansion and different demographics tended to be concentrated geographically. Furthermore, the melting pot was made easier by many of the immigrant waves already aligning with American values, take for instance the surge of Vietnamese refugees after the war.
European history has very much featured plenty of demographic turnover in their history, whether that be through the spread an adoption of various religions or internal and external conquests that did displace peoples and introduce new settlers to the region. The Balkans certainly hasn't gotten to be the way it as a result of a static population. Even more recently, the advent of British Indians has long been normalized.
In Europe, the people groups and cultures long ago geographically segregated themselves. This sorting took lots and lots of time, until it settled in. The result was French people like to be with other French, same w/ Germans, Italians, Swiss, Poles, Lithuanians, and on and on. Each had certain norms, foods and ways. And when those European people from those specific geographies immigrated to USA, they initially followed the same pattern. Each people group self segregated into their own communities. You can look at NYC, Chicago and other places that have Little Italy, Little Lithuania, etc. But over time, all the available elbow room & opportunities of the North America continent allowed for these Old World segregation ways, to quickly melt away. The forced immigration set upon Europe now though is much different and suggest is result of failed USA prosecuted Iraq war, and the destabilization in region that resulted. And the self segregated people groups of Europe countries don’t appreciate the newcomers largely from the Middle East region, and being told by a globalist class to ‘do like America did/does and absorb this demographic turnover’. The backlash to this is now growing.
Anti-immigration sentiment will never "lose steam" in the UK as long as they continue to allow fundamentalist, anti-Western Muslims into their country.
I used to drive around with an "I ❤️ Muslims" bumper sticker on my car.
But I now see the UK as a cautionary tale against allowing too many Muslim immigrants into the country.
Sorry, but I don't like seeing tens of thousands of people in the streets of London chanting in favor of the destruction of Israel. It's blood chilling.
I also don't like what's happened to Hamtramck Michigan, where the first all Muslim city council banned the Pride Flag, and where a majority of residents are demanding the US stop supporting Israel in its war against Islamic terrorism.
The only way to stop anti-immigrant sentiment is to stop allowing an unvetted influx of immigrants into Western countries.
The only way to stop anti-Muslim sentiment in the USA is to let Muslim immigrants know, in no uncertain terms, that homophobia, misogyny, and anti-Jewish racism will NOT be tolerated here. But the idiot Alt Left is so terrified of being called Islamophobic that they treat Muslims like children, patting them on the head and saying "I understand" instead of saying "Fuck your feelings! We are a liberal democracy and we support Gay Rights and we support the right of cartoonists to ridicule the prophet Mohammed, and we support the democratic nation of Israel. Deal with it."
Treating Muslims like children has backfired - badly.
If the powers that be continue to coddle Muslims and refuse to confront them on their entitled, racist, anti-democratic behaviors on college campuses and in the streets, then I do not want them here.
I'm a lefty who has moderated on immigration, and I'd like to push back a bit on your characterization of why many lefties are hesitant to criticize the illiberal elements of the Muslim community.
Some people are hesitant to criticize minority groups because of the "oppressor-oppressed" belief system. But another reason for the hesitation is that many lefties fear that they might lend power to the extreme right. Tiptoeing around the issue is strategically flawed, but the underlying want for caution is valid.
Many on the right don't like to acknowledge that some of their fellow righties who are critical of radical Islam do not want to stop at (small-L) liberal responses or the cultural differences discussion. I have 3 relevant examples:
1) I was recently reading an article by a far-right white identitarian who praised Elon Musk for embracing Trump, the belief that immigration is an existential threat, "The Great Replacement" theory (the belief that immigration doves are trying to replace natives, and particularly whites), and "race realism." These are not separate issues to him.
2) In a different but related example, I saw an exchange between a right-leaning man and a left-leaning gay man where the right-leaner asked why pro-LGBT lefties don't align with the right, which wants to restrict immigration of socially conservative immigrants. The gay left-leaning man responded that despite the right-leaner's wishcasting about how things "should be," in practice, the left-leaning man found a notable correlation between anti-Muslim and anti-LGBT Westerners. I don't mean that this is the only reason why he's left-leaning, but his point is important.
3) The cultural right's outcry about "DEI" attracted some people who believe that such practices are inegalitarian, but it also attracted a lot of right-wingers who saw it as an opportunity to mock the competency of minorities in general and defend their fellow whites. After the Baltimore bridge collapse, which was caused by a cargo ship running into it, a number of conservatives on Twitter called the city's black mayor "DEI mayor" and blamed him for the collapse with no evidence of DEI benefits or mistakes on his part. They saw a black man who hadn't redeemed himself in their eyes through some right-leaning allegiance, and that was enough to tar him with "DEI mayor."
On a philosophical and compositional level, the right is very attractive to a lot of people who want the traditional "inner circle" protected from "outsiders," whether that be Muslims, blacks, gays, feminists, trans, etc. So, even many lefties who agree that we should hold ultraconservative Muslims to the same standards as ultraconservative Christians worry that lending energy to criticism of ultraconservative Islam will feed the extreme right.
I think the left can and should thread the needle. We can engage the cultural differences/assimilation topic while also marginalizing brute nativism. And I also think the egalitarian right shouldn't just sit on its laurels and blame the left for its own apprehension without acknowledging the harmful influence of the extreme right.
During his presidency, Trump told some nonwhite congresswomen who are native-born American citizens to “go back” to the “broken and crime infested” countries they came from instead of criticizing “our government,” with the implication that they are separate from true Americans. If I remember correctly, Trump is a 3rd generation American. But for--*ahem*--*some reason*, he sees himself as being inside the circle of true Americans and sees the congresswomen as outside the circle. Some other Republicans, many of whom are immigration restrictionists, picked up on this, and criticized Trump at the time. Trump apologists will chalk this up to Trump "saying mean things" or having a "big mouth," but these were not offhanded insults, like calling someone fat. These were ideologically potent statements.
Fascinating discussion. Denmark's Social Democrats have long adopted a harder line on non-EU immigration, assimilation, and crime than other European center-left policies. Now we're seeing other European -- and American (Biden and Harris have adopted almost all of Trump's immigration policies) -- center-left parties come around to Danish Social Democrat-type immigration politics as right-wing populists gain traction. One European country without a lot of right-wing populists in power? Denmark.
If the idea of having a nation state with borders and citizens having input on immigration levels is considered "far-right", you already have a problem. The idea that this would not be the case would have been considered insane across the West thirty years ago.
You basically wrote my comment for me. Thanks. There is nothing far-right about acknowledging borders. Also, given the cost of supporting those newly arrived, and the increasing competition for jobs, housing, medical care and other resources, it seems extremely naive to allow unrestricted access to our country.
The problem is that when you ignore the existence of borders for a prolonged period of time it becomes normalized, making it more and more challenging to reverse policy. On the one hand sanctioning illegal immigration is a slap to the face both to those who have gone though an arduous immigration process already as well as those who are currently seeking to immigrate though "appropriate" channels. On the other hand, if you have a significant population of undocumented people who have crossed the boarder, it will be extremely onerous to track them down and deport them without there also being some collateral.
Like many other issues, illegal immigration has essentially just become another hot potato for most politicians to throw around. Until the potatoe receives a text to explode.
🤡
When European peoples first come to America, they segregated themselves into their own neighborhoods, Irish, Italian, Polish, Lithuanian, etc. This was what they had always done in the Old Country, for millennia…. so why wouldn’t they bring that here. Like people/cultures band together.
Now, in one generation, global elite Boomers have told EU countries that mass immigration like the USA has experienced is ‘good’ for them, which runs counter to how these people/cultures have organized themselves for all of their human history. America has imposed its ‘immigration value’ on Europe. The Englishman, German, Irishman and Frenchman are experiencing a strange sort of death as a result. I don’t see this changing in Europe until America changes or falls in influence. Hungary is going to continue to stick out as a nation state among the dying, because they are the one country in region still alive and not losing its historical, cultural and people identity. Because they don’t accept the ‘immigration is good’ argument from Boomer global elite. And this is why Victor Orban is vilified by the Left leaning press.
Sweden is now floating the idea to pay immigrants $34K to move out, because they see their mistake, and don't want to end up like UK/Germany/France:
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/new-swedish-migration-minister-remigration-is-an-important-issue-for-sweden/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I could be convinced otherwise but I see Trump as one of those New Yorkers who talks big and hyperbolically. In any case, I totally agree that his framing is not helpful. We don’t have to discuss whether the Springfield immigrants are eating dogs to discuss whether it might be just too much change for the local people. On the other hand, many millions of ordinary people have been trying to make this point for a long time . Now that Trump made the crazy dog comment people seem to be paying more attention to the issue. And that’s IMO a good thing
Your defintion of “far right” is deliberately vague.
Being a restrictionist on immigration isn’t inherently far right; but from an American perspective, the people leading the way on restrictionism tend to have *other* views that attract the label.
In the 2016 US presidential election cycle, Donald Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left both argued for a secure border. But Trump also called for blanket ban on Muslim entry to the US (link to a video of Trump saying this if you don't believe me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLgTF8FrYlU). This got him a lot of criticism, even from other conservative Republicans who were critical of Islamism, because banning a religious group would be blatantly unconstitutional. Some other prominent Trump supporters have argued that mass migration is a “Great Replacement” plot to replace the white population with brown people. Trump also told some nonwhite congresswomen who are native-born American citizens to “go back” to the “broken and crime infested” countries they came from instead of criticizing “our government,” with the implication that they are separate from true Americans. If I remember correctly, Trump is a 3rd generation American. But for--*ahem*--*some reason*, he sees himself as being inside the circle of true Americans and sees the congresswomen as outside the circle. Some other Republicans picked up on this, and criticized Trump at the time. Trump apologists will chalk this up to Trump "saying mean things" or having a "big mouth," but these were not offhanded insults, like calling someone fat. These were ideologically potent statements. Many immigration restrictionists, including on the right, are not supportive of these more extreme views.
Perhaps the "far right" label is applied too widely by some critics, but there is a "there" there. The “far right” is defined not necessarily by their immigration restrictionism, but by their other qualities, such as lesser loyalty to liberal norms.
I don’t think it was a blanket ban on Muslim countries. Wasn’t it a ban on select countries that supposedly support terrorism (obviously not including the US, haha)
Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen to be precise. It's not like Bosnians and Turks were treated the same.
Trump is not precise with his words—see eating dogs comment as an example of his hyperbolic characterization of how it’s hard for people to deal with newcomers with different values/customs. But to there point, I think it’s just far right people who are willing to admit that they prefer to admit immigrants who will assimilate (join the local public pool, have their girls on sports teams, etc) and being Muslim is a useful piece of information—setting aside whether it’s legal to consider someone’s religion .
Trump *was* precise with his words though. What do you think he meant when he said "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"?
I think there's a valid conversation to be had about assimilation that doesn't require us to support or make excuses for Trump. Extremists like Trump actually make this conversation *more* difficult to have, because restrictionism, which is not inherently illiberal or bigoted, gets branded by people who are actually illiberal and bigoted.
That was what he could enact legally, but that wasn't what he proposed. This is a 2015 video of Trump proposing "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" during one of his campaign speeches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLgTF8FrYlU
Why do you say Sahra Wagenknecht "seeks to suck the oxygen out of the right by advocating for a more restrictive stance on immigration". Maybe she just thinks the costs of the current level/type of immigration outweigh the benefits. And it's not a simple political strategy to win downscale voters.
🤡
If you had a reasonable response, you would make one. You basically forfeited the argument.
They ARE HUMAN BEINGS.
Totally agree it's important to see the humanity in immigrants/migrants. But our elected leaders are supposed to represent our interests not the interests of human beings outside their jurisdiction. And pretty much everyone wants a border of some kind (i.e., not open borders) then it follows that our elected leaders are tasked with weighting the costs of benefits of different immigration policies on their constituents. Now obviously this doesn't happen or immigration would be far lower but it's just to point out that we have to identify costs and benefits if we aren't letting everyone in. And having low and loose standards on who gets in to wealthy countries not always good for people from other countries. Take a look at one of the free US national provider ID lookups and you'll see lots of doctors and nurses who were trained in public universities in countries experiencing poverty and health care provider shortages come to the US--the US gets a trained provider, and the provider gets lots of $, but what about the people whose tax dollars trained the provider or who just need medical care??
Very high IQ response
Mush is an appropriate handle for you🤣 Racists and bigots are 🤡s
Why do you hate us dogs, Jasmine?
I love dogs🥰 I loathe rascals and bigots.
Yes, I believe Europe’s populist right is surging because European liberals are ignoring voters about immigration.
I am speaking from my own experience, not from any direct knowledge of European politics. Once upon a time, I myself voted for a hard right anti-immigration candidate because my tribe refused to get its head out of the sand on the issue.
America history is relatively short and rooted/based on continual 'demographic turnover'. First the English, then Irish, then Italians, then Mexicans, etc. Melting pot worked here. In Europe, they have ZERO historical experience with this kind of 'demographic turnover'. It's not part of their DNA. In fact, Europe history is to fight off/keep out foreign invaders. Boomer elites have ignored this history and said to EU nations 'do it like America has done'. But what worked for America doesn't necessarily work for Europe. It's elitist and naive to press this 'American value' onto Europe. It's killing their cultural and historical identity.
I think you are missing key points about both American and European histories. In America, much of that demographic expansion also coincided with territorial expansion and different demographics tended to be concentrated geographically. Furthermore, the melting pot was made easier by many of the immigrant waves already aligning with American values, take for instance the surge of Vietnamese refugees after the war.
European history has very much featured plenty of demographic turnover in their history, whether that be through the spread an adoption of various religions or internal and external conquests that did displace peoples and introduce new settlers to the region. The Balkans certainly hasn't gotten to be the way it as a result of a static population. Even more recently, the advent of British Indians has long been normalized.
In Europe, the people groups and cultures long ago geographically segregated themselves. This sorting took lots and lots of time, until it settled in. The result was French people like to be with other French, same w/ Germans, Italians, Swiss, Poles, Lithuanians, and on and on. Each had certain norms, foods and ways. And when those European people from those specific geographies immigrated to USA, they initially followed the same pattern. Each people group self segregated into their own communities. You can look at NYC, Chicago and other places that have Little Italy, Little Lithuania, etc. But over time, all the available elbow room & opportunities of the North America continent allowed for these Old World segregation ways, to quickly melt away. The forced immigration set upon Europe now though is much different and suggest is result of failed USA prosecuted Iraq war, and the destabilization in region that resulted. And the self segregated people groups of Europe countries don’t appreciate the newcomers largely from the Middle East region, and being told by a globalist class to ‘do like America did/does and absorb this demographic turnover’. The backlash to this is now growing.
Anti-immigration sentiment will never "lose steam" in the UK as long as they continue to allow fundamentalist, anti-Western Muslims into their country.
I used to drive around with an "I ❤️ Muslims" bumper sticker on my car.
But I now see the UK as a cautionary tale against allowing too many Muslim immigrants into the country.
Sorry, but I don't like seeing tens of thousands of people in the streets of London chanting in favor of the destruction of Israel. It's blood chilling.
I also don't like what's happened to Hamtramck Michigan, where the first all Muslim city council banned the Pride Flag, and where a majority of residents are demanding the US stop supporting Israel in its war against Islamic terrorism.
The only way to stop anti-immigrant sentiment is to stop allowing an unvetted influx of immigrants into Western countries.
The only way to stop anti-Muslim sentiment in the USA is to let Muslim immigrants know, in no uncertain terms, that homophobia, misogyny, and anti-Jewish racism will NOT be tolerated here. But the idiot Alt Left is so terrified of being called Islamophobic that they treat Muslims like children, patting them on the head and saying "I understand" instead of saying "Fuck your feelings! We are a liberal democracy and we support Gay Rights and we support the right of cartoonists to ridicule the prophet Mohammed, and we support the democratic nation of Israel. Deal with it."
Treating Muslims like children has backfired - badly.
If the powers that be continue to coddle Muslims and refuse to confront them on their entitled, racist, anti-democratic behaviors on college campuses and in the streets, then I do not want them here.
I'm a lefty who has moderated on immigration, and I'd like to push back a bit on your characterization of why many lefties are hesitant to criticize the illiberal elements of the Muslim community.
Some people are hesitant to criticize minority groups because of the "oppressor-oppressed" belief system. But another reason for the hesitation is that many lefties fear that they might lend power to the extreme right. Tiptoeing around the issue is strategically flawed, but the underlying want for caution is valid.
Many on the right don't like to acknowledge that some of their fellow righties who are critical of radical Islam do not want to stop at (small-L) liberal responses or the cultural differences discussion. I have 3 relevant examples:
1) I was recently reading an article by a far-right white identitarian who praised Elon Musk for embracing Trump, the belief that immigration is an existential threat, "The Great Replacement" theory (the belief that immigration doves are trying to replace natives, and particularly whites), and "race realism." These are not separate issues to him.
2) In a different but related example, I saw an exchange between a right-leaning man and a left-leaning gay man where the right-leaner asked why pro-LGBT lefties don't align with the right, which wants to restrict immigration of socially conservative immigrants. The gay left-leaning man responded that despite the right-leaner's wishcasting about how things "should be," in practice, the left-leaning man found a notable correlation between anti-Muslim and anti-LGBT Westerners. I don't mean that this is the only reason why he's left-leaning, but his point is important.
3) The cultural right's outcry about "DEI" attracted some people who believe that such practices are inegalitarian, but it also attracted a lot of right-wingers who saw it as an opportunity to mock the competency of minorities in general and defend their fellow whites. After the Baltimore bridge collapse, which was caused by a cargo ship running into it, a number of conservatives on Twitter called the city's black mayor "DEI mayor" and blamed him for the collapse with no evidence of DEI benefits or mistakes on his part. They saw a black man who hadn't redeemed himself in their eyes through some right-leaning allegiance, and that was enough to tar him with "DEI mayor."
On a philosophical and compositional level, the right is very attractive to a lot of people who want the traditional "inner circle" protected from "outsiders," whether that be Muslims, blacks, gays, feminists, trans, etc. So, even many lefties who agree that we should hold ultraconservative Muslims to the same standards as ultraconservative Christians worry that lending energy to criticism of ultraconservative Islam will feed the extreme right.
I think the left can and should thread the needle. We can engage the cultural differences/assimilation topic while also marginalizing brute nativism. And I also think the egalitarian right shouldn't just sit on its laurels and blame the left for its own apprehension without acknowledging the harmful influence of the extreme right.
During his presidency, Trump told some nonwhite congresswomen who are native-born American citizens to “go back” to the “broken and crime infested” countries they came from instead of criticizing “our government,” with the implication that they are separate from true Americans. If I remember correctly, Trump is a 3rd generation American. But for--*ahem*--*some reason*, he sees himself as being inside the circle of true Americans and sees the congresswomen as outside the circle. Some other Republicans, many of whom are immigration restrictionists, picked up on this, and criticized Trump at the time. Trump apologists will chalk this up to Trump "saying mean things" or having a "big mouth," but these were not offhanded insults, like calling someone fat. These were ideologically potent statements.
Bravo! Well said! I hope you run for office wherever you are to express these realities more widely and affect legislation in your area.
Fascinating discussion. Denmark's Social Democrats have long adopted a harder line on non-EU immigration, assimilation, and crime than other European center-left policies. Now we're seeing other European -- and American (Biden and Harris have adopted almost all of Trump's immigration policies) -- center-left parties come around to Danish Social Democrat-type immigration politics as right-wing populists gain traction. One European country without a lot of right-wing populists in power? Denmark.