*)limiting ILLEGAL immigration, emphasis on the word illegal.
Nobody in Europe has a problem with LEGAL immigration, but the left wing parties and MSM keeps ignoring this and sweeping illegal immigration along the legal immigration banner to drive the narrative that Europeans are racists who hate all immigrants in order to justify (social) media censorship and restrictions on free speech to fight the "right wing extremist nazi" boogie man, which ironically, actually fuels the swing towards the extremist right wing, because the regular public discourse and communication channels for criticizing illegal immigration in public are censored/disabled.
A lot of people in Europe absolutely have a problem with legal immigration, with asylum seekers particularly maligned.
Specifically, the rise of far-right parties in Scandinavia, Germany and France is very much a reaction to legal immigration from Arab and African countries. The argument is not "they're stealing our jobs", but "they're abusing our welfare benefits, driving up crime and raping our women".
Is an asylum seeker really legal if their claim is a stretch and they are in fact just an economic migrant? Seems like an arguable category that should be treated separately. Though I agree there appear to be plenty of people in Europe who want to restrict legal immigration too. Is this taboo there now too?
Yes. You answered your own question. A person who is her legally is here legally. If their claim is denied (and I'd argue in many cases the bias would be towards denying valid claims then the other way around) and they refused to leave then they'd be an unathorized immigrant without legal right to stay in the country. But before then they are explicitly there legally.
Taking words out of context generally never forms the basis of a good argument. For example here you cropped out the commission of immigration fraud, which leads me to doubt you accurately answered my question. In the US at least, such behavior can lead to punishments well beyond denial of the application. Are you saying in Europe it is fair play? Either way of course the point relevant to the thread is whether people are justifiable in viewing such applicants as illegal vs legal.
Having your amnesty application rejected (whether the court judged fairly or too harshly) is not in any way or shape fraud. Law is complex and many refugees and asylum seekers don't fully understand the law. Even hoping it applies to you optimistically would not be fraud. Fraud is only when you purposely lie to try to gain the right to stay here. Such things happen but not nearly as often as anti immigrant people claim. Something that seems to happen more often is anti immigrant politicians lying and trying to break the law in order to restrict immigration such as by withdrawing TPS by claiming unsafe countries are now safe(so people can be deported)
1) Not all asylum seekers are legal immigrants. Legal means you have obtained an entry visa before crossing the border.
2) Even huge amounts of legal asylum seekers can end up straining the already thin welfare state, so it's only normal that taxpayers paying for the welfare state, ask their politicians "where are you goanna house all these newly arrived asylum seekers when even citizens and taxpayers are struggling with housing?" or "how do you know all those unvetted people you're letting in aren't criminals or if they're compatible with our culture and values so that we and our children can feel safe in public?"
So when politicians provide no answers to those questions, how are you surprised voters aren't taking this well and choosing the extreme right?
1) no it means legally seeking asylum under the legal process
2) Maybe build more housing? Maybe hire some of the new immigrants to build more housing. They're not unvetted because they are going through a vetting process. Statistically we know most aren't criminals.
I don’t think that anyone minds immigration of highly educated people from advanced civilized countries that have aligned values and respect local cultures.
But illegal and legal immigrants from other countries mainly consume taxpayer resources and spread crime and violence.
That is absolutely not true. Whoever you heard that from is lying to you. Local citizens cause way more crime than immigrants. Maybe think about where you are getting your news from, because it is bullshit.
Maybe because people have been duped so much in the last 10+ years to know that the loaded statement of "more immigration" from the government only means legalizing more ILLEGAL immigration, driving them to hate all forms of immigration because the governments have proven themselves useless at enforcing border controls and depurations of those who brake the law.
That's the result that you get when you maliciously sweep ILLEGAL immigration under the same political banner used for legal immigration, as the liberal European governments have done, so you end up hurting the image of legal immigration as well but this is the fault of politicians, not the people whoa have suffered form illegal immigration and have next to no channels of changing this other than voting far right.
Ummm... At least in the US, they are absolutely not worried about law breaking at all. Look who they just elected president? "Law and order" is basically dead here.
When you use a list of tattoo elements to identify "Venezuelan gang members" and that list is also matched by the cheap options on the wall of any random tattoo shop, you tend to get a lot of false positives.
I just find it fascinating how some people are perfectly fine with rich criminals, but want to get rid of the poor criminals. It makes me wonder what their real motivations are.
Nobody in Europe has a problem with LEGAL immigration, but the left wing parties and MSM keeps ignoring this and sweeping illegal immigration along the legal immigration banner to drive the narrative that Europeans are racists who hate all immigrants in order to justify (social) media censorship and restrictions on free speech to fight the "right wing extremist nazi" boogie man, which ironically, actually fuels the swing towards the extremist right wing, because the regular public discourse and communication channels for criticizing illegal immigration in public are censored/disabled.