[itsoktocry]

>"Share our food, Share our homes and Share our countries" is quite a big demand on everyone else. I am certainly not willing to do so without limit and without regard to context

Neither are a lot of the people who initially advocated for the policies, ie NYC, as we're finding out.

Immigration is great. Unfettered illegal immigration is not. It puts pressure on social infrastructure and causes social strife. Look at us here in Canada. Most of our immigration is legal, and yet our wealth-per-person is shrinking because we can't build infrastructure fast enough to keep up with population growth.

[inglor_cz]

There certainly is an equivalent of NIMBY in Western asylum politics.

A lot of Green/Progressive voters in Western Europe live in affluent neighbourhoods where practical effects of current migration waves are very limited, and often positive (e.g. cheap workforce for your household, but your kids' school does not suffer from any gang activity).

Voting patterns across income groups tend to reflect that discrepancy.

[cycomanic]

That seems to misrepresent reality. Generally speaking in all elections that I am aware off, rural regions are leaning right while urban regions are leaning left. In fact in general it seems anti-immigration/foreigner stances are almost anti-proportional to the number of immigrants/foreigners a person might encounter during their day.

Just 2 counter examples (anecdotes but I'm sure a bit of searching will reveal numbers to back this up): the first electorate that directly voted a green candidate Was the Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg electorate in 2002, likely one of the places in Germany with the highest proportion of immigrants (when it was still not gentrified like it is today.). Another anecdote, this map of the French elections https://img.lemde.fr/2022/04/11/0/0/1051/1674/800/0/75/0/869...

Showing that the anti immigration party of le pen is mainly winning in rural areas, and the urban centre of Paris is in fact voting the most left candidate

[inglor_cz]

"In fact in general it seems anti-immigration/foreigner stances are almost anti-proportional to the number of immigrants/foreigners a person might encounter during their day."

That is an egg-and-chicken question. "White flight" is a thing and people who moved away from ghettoizing cities/neigbourhoods into the surrounding suburbia will likely vote against further immigration.

[cycomanic]

But that's typically not happening either. I fact usually the opposite happens, the urban areas with lots of immigrants get gentrified, because everyone wants to live there.

On top of that, we are now seeing that outer suburbs which were guaranteed winning electorates for right parties are now becoming more and more left leaning because young urban dwellers are moving there because they can't afford the cities.

[cycomanic]

Show me the evidence for "white flight" it certainly doesn't happen in most European metropolitan areas (the map of the French elections certainly didn't show that any of the areas surrounding the big cities were right leaning, in fact like e.g. Sachsen and Thüringen, the regions in Germany with the highest support for right wing parties, experience lots of people leaving, not moving there). That's one of the reasons why cities have become increasingly unaffordable.

[JodieBenitez]

> In fact in general it seems anti-immigration/foreigner stances are almost anti-proportional to the number of immigrants/foreigners a person might encounter during their day.

Maybe rurals are well aware of what's happening in urban regions and don't want it ? Maybe these people like their environment as it is and see no point in change ? I don't know, just guessing. :-)