[arp242]

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.

[ryathal]

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.

[mytailorisrich]

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.

[arp242]

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).

[mytailorisrich]

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.