[maleldil]

Danish PM's comment is about integration. You're mischaracterising it. I'd say it's pro immigration, not what you're trying to spin it as.

"We want immigrants to integrate" is not the same as "we don't want immigrants", which is the point you're trying to make.

[simianparrot]

DHH didn’t say he is against immigration. Neither did I. Why are you straw manning?

[em-bee]

how is this not against immigration?

https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64

London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.

Copenhagen, by comparison, was about eighty-five percent native Danes in 2000, and is still three-quarters today. Enough of a foreign presence to feel cosmopolitan, but still distinctly Danish in all of its ways. Equally statistically evident on streets and bike lanes.

But I think, what would Copenhagen feel like, if only a third of it was Danish, like London? It would feel completely foreign, of course. Alien, even. So I get the frustration that many Brits have with the way mass immigration has changed the culture and makeup of not just London, but their whole country.

[simianparrot]

It’s being against unlimited, uncontrolled immigration. Is the difference not obvious?

[em-bee]

no it isn't because everyone has a different idea what limited, controlled immigration means. for some 20% is ok, for some 10% is to much. and for some only those who can integrate to 100% and become invisible is ok. practically speaking, for most people controlled immigration means: only allow the people that we like, and don't allow any of the people that we don't like.

[simianparrot]

We will never solve the scale of what's acceptable or not. That will always require dialogue and will change over time with the economic state of a country and many other factors, including culture.

However this argument is usually used to imply "there should be no limits", and that's obviously not practical nor ethical for anyone involved.

[em-bee]

yes, the limits are economical. not cultural. you can't control the effect on culture by limiting immigration. economics is a different issue. the problem of course is that these issues get mixed, and people use economics as a reason when culture is their problem. and they are blaming their own economic situation on to much immigration when often that is simply not true.

germany has 200.000 open positions in IT right now. what would happen if we invited 200.000 experienced IT people from india? half the people without a job would complain that the indians are taking away their jobs. and lots of people would rant about how all these indians change our culture.

and what about the civil war in syria that produced 5 million refugees leaving the country? or ukraine, another 5.7 million refugees?

do you want to reject them just because you feel they threaten your culture?

since you claim that not having a limit is not ethical, let me quote the german chancellor merkel at the time: "The fundamental right to asylum for the politically persecuted knows no upper limit; that also goes for refugees who come to us from the hell of a civil war."

when merkel said "everyone is welcome" this was literally the first time in my life that i was proud of germany. and you should know that in germany being proud of germany is a politically very sensitive statement usually associated with extreme-right groups.

so when it comes to refugees there can't be an upper limit.and beyond that, the limit depends on the economic situation. if we need the workers, the limit goes up. it has to. culture doesn't factor into it at all. you can't have it both ways.