Especially In The EU And US
Neo-Nazi parties have been doing very well across Europe, most recently in state elections in Germany (Thuringia and Saxony where the original Nazi Party made its big breakthrough in the early 1930s). These MAGA-like parties have been elected to run governments or are part of ruling coalitions in Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Netherlands, Turkey, Finland, Poland… and have made significant electoral gains in France, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Spain and Greece. Immigration isn’t the only reason… but it’s a big one and, logically, it shouldn’t be.
As Lee Hockstader explained Thursday, Immigration has become Europe’s impossible issue, “a threat to liberal democracy, social stability and economic growth… As German baby boomers retire and birth rates plummet, the workforce is shrinking by about 1 percent each year. That means an annual loss of more than 400,000 workers in a country where more than half of employers struggle to fill vacancies. In a nutshell: The country badly needs imported labor, but importing it— which means admitting migrants— is so politically incendiary that a far-right party has just won German elections for the first time since the Nazi era.”
To understand what’s afoot in Germany and other European Union countries, consider how radically their demographic profiles have been remade in the past decade or two.
In major European countries, the portion of foreign-born residents was a demographic detail for years; only in a handful did immigrants make up more than one-tenth of the population at the turn of the century.
Today, the immigrant share in many of the European Union’s 27 member nations approaches or exceeds that of the United States, which was 13.9 percent in 2022. It is roughly 20 percent in Sweden; 18 percent in Germany; 17 percent in Norway; 15 percent in the Netherlands; 11 percent in France and Denmark, and 10 percent in Italy, according to recent figures.
Those countries have become nations of immigrants in the blink of a historical eye. Little wonder they have not adapted what it means to be Dutch, French, Italian, Danish or German to reflect the multicultural societies they have become. Neither have many people in the United States, where the share of foreign-born residents is at its highest level in more than a century.
…The impact of immigration is even more eye-opening if you factor in the children or grandchildren of immigrants. In France, 40 percent of babies have at least one immigrant parent or grandparent, a figure that would surprise many French people.
Or perhaps it wouldn’t. Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s nationalist movement, who leads some polls ahead of presidential elections set for 2027, has leveraged resentment over migration and multiculturalism, with a focus on Muslims.
So what we’re looking at in Europe is similar to what we see in the U.S., at least to an extent. All the right-wing parties capitalize on fears that immigration, particularly from non-European countries, could erode national identity, culture, and social cohesion, exacerbated by sensationalized media coverage of isolated incidents crimes involving migrants.
And although immigrants contribute to economic growth by filling labor shortages, there is widespread public concern that they compete for jobs, drive down wages, and overburden public services, particularly in sectors like healthcare, housing and education. In times of economic uncertainty, these concerns tend to grow, with right-wing populist parties framing immigration as a threat to the economic well-being of native-born citizens.
Countries with aging populations and low birth rates— like Italy, the Netherlands and Poland— are facing demographic disasters that immigration could help solve. But instead of emphasizing the economic and demographic benefits, right-wing parties argue for policies that would encourage higher birth rates among native citizens rather than relying on immigration. The successful right-wing parties have managed to tap into broader anxieties related to globalization and rapid social change. By focusing on immigration, they create a clear “us vs. them” narrative— the Hitler and Trump model— that resonates with voters who feel left behind or disenfranchised. In this way, immigration becomes a scapegoat for broader economic and societal issues.
Despite the political focus on limiting immigration, many European economies, especially in sectors like healthcare, construction, and agriculture, depend on immigrant labor. Without immigration, these countries would face negative population growth, and their economies would struggle to sustain any growth, as there would be fewer workers and taxpayers to support aging populations. This economic reality is overshadowed by the cultural and political concerns that dominate the public discourse on immigration, just like in the U.S.
There are some significant differences, though, between the situation in Europe and the situation here. For one thing, Europe’s immigration issues are heavily influenced by its colonial past and proximity to regions experiencing conflict. Many immigrants come from former colonies or war-torn regions in the Middle East and Africa. This gives immigration a post-colonial context, where there is a sense of historical responsibility but also resentment over cultural and religious differences. Unlike European countries, we’re primarily a nation of immigrants, and while there has been anti-immigrant sentiment throughout our history (against Irish, Italian, Eastern European Jewish and Chinese immigrants), the current debate is focused more on Latin American and Asian immigration. We have a long history of waves of immigration, which have shaped our national identity, even if there are always tensions about how much new immigrants should assimilate.
As we saw above, the European countries, especially Italy, Germany and the Netherlands, face demographic crises due to aging populations and declining birth rates. Immigration is crucial to sustaining their economies and pension systems. Despite this, craven, xenophobic right-wing parties still push for strict immigration limits, creating a contradiction between economic necessity and political rhetoric. Here, we are also benefitting economically from immigration— especially in terms of labor force growth and innovation— but because of a relatively higher birth rate and population growth (compared to Europe), the demographic pressure is less intense, although immigrants remain essential for various industries like agriculture, tech, and healthcare.
European countries, particularly in Western Europe, try to focus on integration but struggle with long-standing issues related to immigrants from non-European cultures integrating into societies with strong national identities. The lack of assimilation into European secular values is often a point of contention, especially with second- or third-generation immigrants. The U.S. places a stronger emphasis on assimilation, expecting immigrants to adopt American values and norms, even as the concept of the “melting pot” suggests a blending of cultures. The focus in the U.S. is on English language acquisition and adapting to a broad concept of “American”— or even state-centric— identity.
Canada, it should be noted, has a very different experience with immigration and has made an effort to appear as immigrant-friendly, which helps it attract skilled workers. Its annual immigration targets are among the highest in the world. The country relies heavily on immigrants to fill labor shortages in key industries and their multiculturalism policy promotes the integration of immigrants while allowing them to maintain their cultural identities, fostering social harmony. Although there are debates over immigration, particularly in relation to housing availability and integration in large cities, but the overall sentiment remains positive and, unlike their neighbor to the south, immigration is seen as a net benefit for the country’s economy and global influence.
So... you're sayin that, to whites, hate "trumps" common sense and prosperity?
Golly, I would never have thought that possible!!! NOT!!!!!!!!
IOW... dumber than shit.
Re: Canada versus the USA. It's true that Canada under Trudeau père adopted an official policy of multiculturalism, The Canadian Mosaic, as opposed to The American Melting-Pot. My observation is that immigrants to Canada, who are encouraged to some extent to keep and practice their own religions and cultures, cling eagerly to their new Canadian identity, perhaps because they're not made to feel that they need to give up their old one. On the contrary, I find in the USA that people will say they're "Irish" if they're five generations from the old-country. In each case, the natural tendency is to push back against the local political philosophy.