I certainly understand the sentiment, but my question to someone on the "anti" immigration side would be this: what do you see as a possible alternative solution?
Populations are shrinking and to keep the economy in a healthy place, money needs to come from somewhere. The easiest solution is to add bodies via immigration. Otherwise taxes need to go up or governments need to spend money incentivizing people to start families, which will also probably necessitate an increase in taxes.
I moved to the Netherlands a couple of years ago and it's clear to me that the status quo will slowly degrade society eventually. Maybe not in my lifetime and perhaps not in the lifetimes of my future children, but not doing anything is also a decision.
I think if a country decides that it wants to go down one path that essentially leads to a "natural end" that should be their right as a democratic society, but don't try and hide your nations intentions behind flowery language about inclusivity and diversity. If some ideals are so important to the culture, then I think these nations need to be honest and start codifying more aspects of their desired culture into law or start investing heavily in social programs to foster that longing culture.
Please, I absolutely want to here some of your ideas on all sides of this issue! Right now I'm just an immigrant sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how this all shakes out.
I'm not "anti immigration", but I would prefer if immigration had stricter rules in order to better integrate immigrants, reduce crime and lower costs.
We do have a very good safety net, so immigrants who don't contribute does not help the economy, they can be really expensive. In some extreme cases some get 100K+ USD in support yearly because they don't work, and that is when NOK is much weaker than it usually is.
Most of the money Norway spend on financial social assistance is on immigrants, even though they make up less than 20 % of the population. Depending on where immigration is from, the general economic benefit might be very negative or positive.
Generally I do think that someone who moves to another country should do what they can to become a part of society.
I'll be honest. Norway is not the top goal for most immigrants
I'm the child of immigrants and still have family in the old country, and my family decided to move to the US over Western Europe or Singapore specifically because the opportunities are greater and Americans are way more open-minded about immigrants mixing their home culture with their adopted culture.
At the end of the day, European countries will have to make the choice about whether they want to remain monoethnic entities (which itself was a result of ethnic cleansing during and after WW2) or whether they are open to a multicultural identity.
There's no point for skilled immigrants to go to Europe if they have the opportunity or pathway to PR or Citizenship in North America as salaries are higher, opportunities are greater, and the population is way less xenophobic (p.s. r/Canada is NOT representative of Canadians - and I lived in parts of BC where the Reform Party was extremely popular back in the day)
Most immigrants that you use for your archetype in Norway end up being refugees, and are themselves not representative of most immigrants even within Norway.
And I do have extended family in Scandanavia, and honestly, it sucks there from a xenophobia perspective, which pushed them to move to North America a couple years ago.
Also, those immigrants you are derisive about have kids who end up doing very well. Look at how overrepresented 2nd Gen Pakistani Norwegians are in Medicine and Law despite their parents working lower class jobs like janitorial work or taxi driving.
I can only really talk about Germany here, the perspective might be different in other countries. The big challenge is the large number of people coming in, both from legal and illegal immigration. Our system simply can't deal with it. Ideally you would get these people out of the asylum centers (might be the wrong term, no idea) and into jobs so they can actually start living and integrating here. But the harsh reality is that people are stuck for years, waiting for the approval process to happen at some point, and they aren't even allowed to do something useful in the meantime. This, unsurprisingly, creates a lot of tension on all sides and doesn't help anybody. Lowering the numbers might not be the best solution but at least that seems doable.
I feel a lot of this comes from a big resistance to change. Germany tries to take in all immigrants and make them fully German without any trace of their original culture (not socially, but economics wise etc). And that creates huge tension. In my mind, Germany needs to decide which of those various aspects of culture are important and then focus on them, and allow for diversity in other parts.
But why should they change? Ultimately immigrants need to assimilate. Maybe not the first generation but the second generation should be assimilated.
People always talk about integration but that's easy. Assimilation is the harder goal.
This highlights the key, difficult issue with immigration into Europe: people from vastly different cultures and religion who don't assimilate even in some cases at the third generation. But it's very difficult to openly discuss this because anyone who dares say, for example, "there are too many muslim immigrants" is immediately piloried and so the debate is poisoned.
1. Gender equality : probably very high on list of desirable qualities in assimilation
2. Language : may be somewhere in middle
3. Being required to Celebrate Christmas in kindergarten : even lower I say and may be counterproductive
Not all sides of assimilation are same. With Germany, it seems like it's all or nothing though. The debate is poisoned because no one is listening to the other side. One side says, "why should we change?" And other side say, "well, why should we?" And nothing goes anywhere.
No, there are no "different levels of assimilation", by definition.
Language is a basic requirement for integration, by the way, way before assimilation.
I think your last sentence misses the point that there is no obligation to accept immigrants and that the host country is sovereignly free to accept or reject anyone they wish.
Following this logic, population has to keep growing forever.
Thus won't happen and it is impossible for it to happen.
So immigration is just kicking the can down the road (with heavy societal cost) instead of facing the challenge head-on. That challenge is to accept that population will stop growing and even decrease and to adapt.
For instance, technology allows and will allow to automate many jobs.
I mostly agree, and I should have added something about that to my original post. In our current economies, things only "work" if the numbers keep increasing.
Personally, I think we have quite a long way to go before we reach a point where that cannot ever be true and I think we should account for the possibility that humanity finds a way to keep expanding forever. Whether that be into the ocean or outer space or perhaps ever vertically on Earth. But those are problems for a thousand years from now and I don't think are as worthy of consideration in 2024.
What sort of other challenges do you see that need to be addressed first and foremost?
As said, birth rates are already below replacement rates in developed countries and decreasing everywhere else. Projections are that the global population may stop growing by the end of the century.
The seemingly "easy" option of immigration is causing big societal issues in Europe with a growing backlash against it.
The global environmental crisis is caused by the booming population of the last century or so combined with economic growth.
> For instance, technology allows and will allow to automate many jobs.
Japan will be the first place where we will see this playing out. I think this will be one of the biggest social experiments of our lifetimes.
I do not know how it can be done, but I do not see another way without huge productivity gains via technology to have some sort of support for an aging/dying population.
> Japan will be the first place where we will see this playing out
They are unofficially bringing in plenty of Vietnamese, Indonesian, Filipino, Nepali, Thai, and Pakistani immigrants via ill-disguised migrant worker programs that have Gulf level abusive conditions
I think "immigration" is a very broad term. There are some immigrants that try to work, adapt to the culture of the country that receives them. And others come from some parts of the world where you would behead someone as an acceptable way to settle things. They aren't able to adapt to a civilized culture even if they try.
I think governments could do a bit more by making more fine-grained choices. Of course that's easily targeted by political opposition as xenophobia. Such a system could be also abused.
You talk about Netherlands and you not seeing that collapse in your lifetime. I see Spain. Here police and justice don't work that well and there is a feeling of impunity. I can see Spanish culture collapsing much faster.
> governments could do a bit more by making more fine-grained choices
Governments can try but it comes down to whether immigrants want to immigrate to those countries.
I'm the child of immigrants, and my family decided to move to the US over Western Europe or Singapore specifically because the opportunities are greater and Americans are way more open-minded about immigrants mixing their home culture with their adopted culture.
At the end of the day, European countries will have to make the choice about whether they want to remain monoethnic entities (which itself was a result of ethnic cleansed during and after WW2) or whether they are open to a multicultural identity.
There's no point for skilled immigrants to go to Europe if they have the opportunity or pathway to PR or Citizenship in North America as salaries are higher, opportunities are greater, and the population is way less xenophobic (p.s. r/Canada is NOT representative of Canadians - and I lived in parts of BC where the Reform Party was extremely popular back in the day)
Why would a Mexican SWE want to move to Spain in order to earn peanuts and get called a "Sudaca" when they can earn a higher salary in El Paso or Dallas and still be a couple hours from home.
Ime, the personal ranking of countries for Asian immigrants (South, East, and Southeast) is as follows:
Most European countries are simply consolation prizes for immigrants. Plenty of people from my region of South Asia worked in the UK and Italy back in the day, but Canada and the US remains the primary goal.
> I certainly understand the sentiment, but my question to someone on the "anti" immigration side would be this: what do you see as a possible alternative solution?
Most people are not against immigration per se, they are against uncontrolled immigration of undocumented aliens. A legal and orderly immigration process is the way to go for Europe. In fact this route existed for many years but recently it takes a back seat to simply running over the border. Europe need to scale it up and actually allow for more legal immigration.
The discussions usually suffer that there are different migrations route: Call it illegal or legal migration. Illegal migration try to abuse the asylum system to get into Europe and then work there in low paid jobs (which are better conditions then home). 90 % of all migration discussion are about this.
Legal migration is much more accepted (its legal anyway), more educated people. It also has its flaws: housing problems, migrates who refuse to learn the local language (very important in Netherlands recently). But this is less discussed and has more economic benefits for the local population.
I agree. Personally, as someone who chose to come here from the US, I'm perfectly content to learn Dutch. Just as when Mexican immigrants come to the US, there is an expectation that you learn English (and it's quite explicit I might add!).
Do you think it would be helpful for governments to enforce more strict "integration" policies to satisfy the worries of the local population? If I'm not mistaken, Denmark has a much more robust integration process and I tend to see less pushback from Danes about immigrants.
English is a much more attractive language to learn than Dutch especially if you don't know if you're going to stay in that country for a long time. So, such expectations create bias towards people with already a solid footing in the country.
And you see that happening where US remains more attractive destination for highly skilled people and Europe remains attractive for people who are willing to invest that much time for whatever reason (choice or necessity). And you see that in quality of immigration and then people wonder why they don't get economically beneficial immigrants..
" If I'm not mistaken, Denmark has a much more robust integration process and I tend to see less pushback from Danes about immigrants. " Denmark wasn't a big goal for migration anyway.
I like to see the results before I opt it in such harsh measures (like forcing people to move out).
But again, this was more about illegal migration.
In Germany antisemitic character traits are reason not to get the citizen ship (which I agree) but the whole woke + pro Palestine crowd was very unpleased about.
Should applicants for citizenship to Germany be required to sign a written statement "acknowledging the right of Russia to exist"? Or the People's Republic of China, say?
That's what at least one version of the test (in Saxony-Anhalt) requires -- except that it happens to apply to a certain other random country (Israel). But hey, if you're a fan of McCarthyist loyalty oaths of this sort, then I suppose this is the kind of thing you like.
It would also make you complicit in a form of antisemitism -- in that it denies the right of Orthodox Jews (some of whom are fundamentally opposed to the current State of Israel because it preempts the coming of the Messiah) to be true to their own views and identity in regard to this matter. BTW this is an opinion based on deeply held religious views, not on any political standpoint per se.
Apparently the yahoos who came up with this law don't feel these people have a right to express their deeply held views in accordance with what they see as Jewish Law. And they certainly don't think such people -- the "wrong kind" of Jews, I guess -- should be welcome in Germany.
You may now thank the "woke crowd" for saving you from this particular form of authoritarian (and antisemitic) nonsense.
" Should applicants for citizenship to Germany be required to sign a written statement "acknowledging the right of Russia to exist"? Or the People's Republic of China, say? " There are not many people denying Russia or Chinese to make a state? And definitely there was no genocide to them.
"in that it denies the right of Orthodox Jews" a small group of Orthodox Jews, seeing as weirdos among other Jews.
" You may now thank the "woke crowd" for saving you from this particular form of authoritarian (and antisemitic) nonsense. " that does not make any sense.
The easiest solution is to stop the population decline. I have a suspicion that taking people's money in order to give some of the money back to 'incentivize' families is not the most effective or straightforward way to do it. Population had been growing for thousands years without such a process.
Maybe stop playing games like the Arab Spring. Let the dictators do their dictating. When you help overthrow foreign governments and you don't have two oceans protecting you, then you suffer the refugees.
You are describing a doomed government fiscal scheme. It is more like a ponzi scheme that requires new entrants into perpetuity. This is doomed to fail. It is simply bad policy.
For any system, absorbing shocks and massive social change will take decades to resolve. "The natural end" I would argue will occur with or without government intervention. In the ideal case, government intervention should lessen the upheaval by preparing for eventual population decline. At worst, government intervention will champion false hare-brained schemes like Brexit or massive immigration. This will only make things worse, not better.
This situation remind of when France's Louis XVI was deeply in debt. Instead of reforming society and their unfair taxation scheme (only the poor paid taxes), France put their trust in Necker a "financial genius". Necker published a completely fake set of accounting books in order to get even more loans. Of course, he argued the loans were only step1 of his plan to get "breathing room". Step2 was to actually reform France. I believe he is disingenuous. As an experienced financier, he should known that loaning money to France is like giving money to a gambling addict. Who is the greater the fool? The gambling addict or the person loaning money to the addict? Meanwhile Louis XVI and his family got their heads chopped off by the French Revolution. With hindsight, he would have better off confiscating all the church property (which the Revolutionaries did) and refused to pay the old debts.
There are degrees of things; "too much immigration" does not mean "no immigration". And of course populations don't need to keep growing indefinitely for a "healthy economy"; that's just not mathematically possible. So we need to be able to deal with non-growing or even shrinking populations anyway.
And I do think "how much migration is too much migration?" is a serious question worth asking; there's a big difference if 1%, 10%, and 50% of the population are migrants. It's a shame this topic has been hijacked by right-wing firebrands.
One of the main problems is just housing; you can have long discussions on the cause(s) of that and I don't think migration is the root cause, but at the same time it's hard to deny that migration puts extra pressure on things, especially in the Netherlands with the whole tax discount for migrants. And abstract discussions are all fine, but if people ain't got no place to live in, then well... Long-term plans and discussions don't really resonate if the short term sucks so much.
Almost no one is talking about no immigration beyond a tiny fraction on the right and a larger faction on the left using it as a motte and bailey to support unlimited migration. A bigger issue is immigration via refugee status, as the people claiming asylum range from actual victims to economic migrants, and the amount of support needed is often far greater than other types of migrants.
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.
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).
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.
European countries must choose between Americanisation (becoming a nation of immigrations) or Japanification (becoming an elderly nation with plateauing economics) because of the low birth rates & high life expectancy.
I see the UK/France going for the former option and Poland/Hungary going for the latter. Will be interesting to see how Germany and Sweden decide.
Population cannot grow forever, birth rates are dropping globally, and in fact birds rates are already below replacement rate in most developed countries.
So stagnant or decreasing population will happen, and I think actually should happen considering the global environmental crisis.
This does not imply plateauing economics. We need to start focusing on figures per capita, which means using education and technology to maximise productivity instead of relying on cheap human labour and overall GDP figures. What's important is for people to be better off individually.
Mass immigration is destroying homogeneous nation states in Europe, hence the backlash and hence why Eastern Asian countries do not want to follow down the same path.
I think the best case long term scenario is population stability.
> We need to start focusing on figures per capita
Even per capita figures are distorted by the fact that naturally declining populations imply ageing populations. So even in a technologically improving society where output per worker was increasing, per capita figures could decrease.
To be clear I don't think Japanification is inherently bad - individual quality of life can still improve despite unflattering macroeconomic numbers. But it still involves tradeoffs.
There's no recipe policymakers can follow to raise birthrates over extended periods of time. Sweden, South Korea and Poland have all tried generous financial supports that failed; the smaller Soviet republics tried authoritarian methods that failed.
Even nineteenth century France & Imperial Rome under Augustus don't appear to have been successful in raising birthrates, although I can't pretend to have great data for those examples.
Hard disagree. The housing / labor markets systems are fundamentally broken and tossing what is effectively scraps at people won't cause them to have a second child in their one bedroom or move 1.5 hours away from their high status job
Intuitively that makes sense, but housing and labour markets don't seem to correlate much with fertility rates.
In a European context, France has much higher fertility than any of the Nordic countries despite higher unemployment and effectively the same housing affordability stats. More internationally the figures in Israel (pre Oct 2023) and Japan also go against the grain.
Extended maternity/paternity leave (especially in Sweden), child benefits (especially Poland), tax exemptions (e.g Hungarian income tax), subsidised or free childcare and more.
Parental leave in Sweden is 80% of your salary and maxes out at 2500 a month for both partners... In Germany it maxes out at 1800. These aren't incentives since you'd be LOSING money by taking parental leave...
> child benefits
120-180 EUR a month per child doesn't even cover half the costs of a child.
It's interesting seeing non-immigrants on HN trying to extrapolate immigrant choices as to why they move where they do, and by interesting I mean very reductive and insulting.
I'm the child of immigrants, and my family decided to move to the US over Western Europe or Singapore specifically because the opportunities are greater and Americans are way more open-minded about immigrants mixing their home culture with their adopted culture.
At the end of the day, European countries will have to make the choice about whether they want to remain monoethnic entities (which itself was a result of ethnic cleansing during and after WW2) or whether they are open to a multicultural identity.
There's no point for skilled immigrants to go to Europe if they have the opportunity or pathway to PR or Citizenship in North America as salaries are higher, opportunities are greater, and the population is way less xenophobic (p.s. r/Canada is NOT representative of Canadians - and I lived in parts of BC where the Reform Party was extremely popular back in the day)
Why would a Mexican Engineer want to move to Spain in order to earn peanuts and get called a "Sudaca" when they can earn a higher salary in El Paso or Dallas and still be a couple hours from home.
Ime, the personal ranking of countries for Asian immigrants (South, East, and Southeast) is as follows:
Most European countries are simply consolation prizes for immigrants. Plenty of people from my region of South Asia worked in the UK and Italy 30-50 years ago, but now prefer Canada and the US instead, or if they're educated staying in India.
You don’t speak for every migrant. Interestingly, you yourself aren’t even an immigrant but your parents are! So I guess by your own logic your whole post is “reductive and insulting”?
Full disclosure, I’m an immigrant myself, I travel a lot for work and stay for prolonged periods.
There are as many reasons to migrate as there are migrants… myself, I would never wish to live in the US but am very happy to live in Switzerland.
Your tier list is completely whack, there is no way I would list the UK above Western Europe. I have spent 18+ months in the UK last five years.
I wonder how this sentiment would change if illegal and asylum seeking immigration ceases to exist.
There's lots of noise in Ireland currently due to "tent cities" popping up in Dublin - there's not enough space to accommodate all the asylum seekers that arrive in the city any more. This clearly has a negative impact on everyone's perception of immigration, and the press readily forgets about the immigrants that entered the country through legal channels and are actively contributing to the economy on a daily basis.
Illegal immigration and asylum abuse get the most headlines because that allows the most sensationalist take.
But if you look at the anti-immigration trends in countries like France or the Netherland, or perhaps Germany, they are driven by legal immigration over decades.
I think it's also a mistake to focus on the economy. First because contributing to the economy as a whole does not mean it benefits everyone. For instance, it can keep wages low or lower. Second because when people object to mass immigration they often look at the impact on society and the disappearing local culture and the impact on housing and infrastructure.
The same mistake was made in the UK during the Brexit referendum: the 'remain' side focused on the "economic benefits" of immigration, completely missing the actual concerns of the people.
Not everything is about money. You have way more security in Western Europe comparing to the US. Also, people don't want to move too far from their families.
Edit: Also I want to add that it is way easier to get a permanent residence and citizenship, for example in Germany than the US. The only problem is just learning German but for that most of the companies support you by paying your language course and so on.
> Not everything is about money. You have way more security in Western Europe comparing to the US
It is as a skilled immigrant like my parents.
A job like a doctor or engineer pays decently well in your home country, so there's no reason to uproot your life unless there is a DRASTIC difference in QoL, because immigrating is expensive. You're looking at $30-50k spent to immigrate.
Germany doesn't provide that drastic enough an economic change compared to the US and Canada, and that's why it's so easy to immigrate to Germany - it isn't as oversubscribed, and those same white collar roles you mentioned end up giving the same if not better benefits in North America via your employer.
For Eastern European or MENA immigrants, Germany makes sense because there is an existing community and it's close to home - not as much for Asians or Central/South Americans.
Furthermore, the xenophobia is real in Germany and across Europe. It's hard to explain to a Gora or Ang Mo, but like you'll never truly become "German" or "French" for a large segment of the population no matter how much you try to assimilate.
> it is way easier to get a permanent residence and citizenship, for example in Germany than the US
Because for a large segment of immigrants (especially from Asia and Central/South America and especially among skilled professionals), Germany and much of Europe simply isn't as attractive a proposition. You end up spending a similar amount immigrating but salaries are much lower and communities aren't as established so it harder to recoup costs
> A job like a doctor or engineer pays decently well in your home country
It is not in Turkey but again, it is not about money. People want to move to Western Europe for multiple reasons. I met with a brain surgeon from South Korea who moved to Germany, because he just wanted to live in the centre of the Europe so he can travel around easily.
I'm also telling people to move to the US if they only care money but that's not their priority.
> You're looking at $30-50k spent to immigrate.
I've never heard such a number. You spend around €2-3K and most of the cases, you get a relocation budget from your employer.
Hence why I called out Eastern Europe and MENA, though Turks who can afford it do try to target the US instead.
For example, all of Erdogan's kids attended IU Bloomington for undergrad and grad school instead of German programs like LMU or TUM, and the Koç family (the family that controls the Turkish economy) sent most of their kids to Stanford, JHU, and Brown.
> I met with a brain surgeon from South Korea who moved to Germany, because he just wanted to live in the centre of the Europe so he can travel around easily
Ofc, yet the largest Korean diaspora in the West is in America, and the 2nd largest in Canada.
> you get a relocation budget from your employer.
In tech we're lucky we have a market that pays so highly for our skills, but other industries don't pay as much or require a significant amount of retraining, and if you're bringing a family, as plenty of immigrants do, you don't want to live in crummy neighborhood, so you need a lot of money to have a safety net.
Visit reddit, and you'll see that many of these Europeans who are against immigration are specifically against male immigrants with Black African and North African heritage. I think that there's a lot of racism in these sentiments. More than just a generic xenophobia.
I don't think calling genuine fear racist or xenophobic is very fair. For someone who's lived long enough to compare life 30 years ago and now (for example in Germany or Sweden) there are some obvious changes visible with equally observable consequences. You just know by paying attention and staying informed.
I think name calling and gaslighting is the biggest problem here because it poisons the whole discourse.
> 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.
They even publish the data as well as a detailed presentation detailing number of respondents per country:
It doesn't seem too representative, that equates to less than 1k per country. Also, the age range is quite small. Still worrisome.
To be frank, given recent events and geopolitical tensions, people are divided on this matter.
Populations are shrinking and to keep the economy in a healthy place, money needs to come from somewhere. The easiest solution is to add bodies via immigration. Otherwise taxes need to go up or governments need to spend money incentivizing people to start families, which will also probably necessitate an increase in taxes.
I moved to the Netherlands a couple of years ago and it's clear to me that the status quo will slowly degrade society eventually. Maybe not in my lifetime and perhaps not in the lifetimes of my future children, but not doing anything is also a decision.
I think if a country decides that it wants to go down one path that essentially leads to a "natural end" that should be their right as a democratic society, but don't try and hide your nations intentions behind flowery language about inclusivity and diversity. If some ideals are so important to the culture, then I think these nations need to be honest and start codifying more aspects of their desired culture into law or start investing heavily in social programs to foster that longing culture.
Please, I absolutely want to here some of your ideas on all sides of this issue! Right now I'm just an immigrant sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how this all shakes out.