[modo_mario]

>Anyway, migration is a human right.

Not having states with citizenship is not a human right.

>Sure. But culture changes all the time!

Not even remotely at the current speed. If it did many of the cultures and ethnicities in europe simply wouldn't exist.

Also your image of free unlimited migration runs into endless historical examples to the contrary.

[kmeisthax]

> Not having states with citizenship is not a human right.

Double negatives in English are difficult to parse, and I can read this two ways:

- "There is no legal entitlement to migration."

- "Citizenship is a human right, and must be exclusionary lest new citizens dilute the value of existing citizenships, ergo any policy that makes citizenship easier to obtain is a violation of human rights."

As a statement of fact, the former is true, but I also wasn't arguing that you already have a legally recognized right to enter any country of your choosing. If you were arguing the latter, however, that is bullshit. Citizenship cannot be a human right because it is a status granted by a state. The state does not grant you your human rights[0], it can only promise not to interfere with them.

As for the historical counterexamples to migration as a human right, I can also bring up plenty of historical counterexamples to free speech as a human right. There have been just as many societies that tried to quell speech as there were societies that tried to quell migration. And, likewise, most people were not in a position to migrate, just as prior to the printing press and mass literacy, most people did not have an audience for their speech. But we would not say that "free speech is not a human right because a lot of countries tried to quash it", or "because most people in most times did not have the means to use it". That would be absurd.

Furthermore, we should keep in mind that when I talk of migration as a human right, I am not solely talking about immigration. Most historical examples of states suppressing migration were just as interested in keeping people from leaving as they were concerned with those entering. The king does not want his servants leaving for a better kingdom; so he welds the exits shut. This practice continued all the way until the Soviet Union made this policy so onerous that the US decided that it would only trade with "non-market economies" if they abolished their exit visas. Emigration is already a legally recognized human right and any country that does not let its citizens leave is rightfully attacked as despotic.

As for culture, uh... I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. Even if every country in Europe were sealed off from one another, the culture of today would be dramatically different from 40 years ago, or 40 years from now. You just don't notice it because you're drifting along the same tide. Likewise, two different countries do not become the same merely because that tide is pulling really fast. France and Czechia were far more isolated 40 years ago, than they are now that the Iron Curtain is gone and the EU allows freedom of movement. They are still culturally distinct countries, even though they're moving in similar directions nowadays.

[0] There are countries in Europe that use their constitutions as a place to put general welfare and infrastructure goals. For example, in Finland, broadband Internet access is a "human right". For the purpose of this discussion we're going to only be talking about human rights as negative freedoms - i.e. the Anglo conception of human rights. I am not opposed to positive freedoms, but that's not what we're talking about.

[modo_mario]

> I can also bring up plenty of historical counterexamples to free speech as a human right

I think human rights are an abstract western concept that aren't as universal as the definitions like to claim. The free speech thing for example is not upheld in the vast majority of muslim countries when it comes to various discussions and criticism of religion. And that's a ton of countries.

There's other examples as well,.

>Most historical examples of states suppressing migration were just as interested in keeping people from leaving as they were concerned with those entering.

I don't think so tho it's of no matter to the discussion. At the end of the day keeping people from leaving was far more difficult than keeping people from coming in to the place where one did have power and jurisdiction.

>This practice continued all the way until the Soviet Union made this policy so onerous that the US decided that it would only trade with "non-market economies" if they abolished their exit visas. Emigration is already a legally recognized human right and any country that does not let its citizens leave is rightfully attacked as despotic.

India is one such country today and they trade just fine. That's not to say that I think it's just.

>As for culture, uh... I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. Even if every country in Europe were sealed off from one another, the culture of today would be dramatically different from 40 years ago, or 40 years from now.

Not in the same way in any shape or form. Despite americanisation, other international influences and local cultural changes I found the culture of my great grandparents recognisable and familiar and can trace the family back hundreds of years in that same spot. Look at the census list from napoleonic times and all the other family names sound familiar too. I have their mannerisms, I speak their dialect, i speak their language, i eat their foods, etc. If i go to an open air museum to look at one of the dwellings from hundreds of years I find a ton of design elements that are essentially the ones I found in my great grandparents farm.

Mind you there are strong differences still and they exist even within less than 40 years but there's an obvious difference between those two kind of changes that one can only look past if they're wilfully doing so.

For example on the contrary I go to my capital and it's surroundings and they don't have the dialects there from a century ago. In fact they don't even speak the same language. Consequentially they watch different media and vote differently. They don't identify themselves with the people that existed there a century ago and to top it off and all of it led to sectarianism affecting our politics to this day. (which was utterly predictable.) There was a second wave of external migration mostly in the last 2 decades leading to those with national descent being about 20% of the population of which less than a quarter speak the old language (typically without the old dialects). This is Brussels I'm talking about and the same change that happened there now happens across the country at a slower (read historically breakneck) speed.

It has proven not to be beneficial for the local population (unemployment is trough the roof, there's a ton of religious radicalism, outsized crime and integration issues, etc) We also still live in a context where a fully sovereign nation has control over who it accepts and were it fully democratic it would answer to it's citizens who when faced with migration that does not serve them would mostly block it. Not by building a wall but by simply barring from the privileges and functions required to exist in society.

Every country does that to some extent and so I'd say the universal part of this supposed human right is so universally rejected that it can't be called one at all.

[kmeisthax]

I don't live in Belgium, and you probably don't want me, a filthy American, living in Belgium. However, I can confidently say what problem you're bumping up against:

Your government does not know how to integrate foreigners.

America used to have an extremely racist and restrictive immigration policy. This was only undone about 50 years ago. As part of the deracialization of American immigration, a bunch of racist senators decided to give America an extremely generous family sponsorship program, specifically to keep the immigrant pool as white as possible. This backfired horribly (for them, not me): America became one of the easiest countries for people from poor countries to immigrate to, because we outsourced the question of who to admit to people who already knew who they are. This derisked the immigration process and resulted in more immigrants from more countries. So every major American city[0] has a pool of well-adjusted, fully integrated immigrants now.

Europe did... none of this. The immigration policy most countries in Europe has is tailored specifically for bringing in temporary workers that can be dismissed as will[2]. This selects for low-skilled rural migrants, and a random sample of those from any country will give you people who are more conservative than average. In contrast, America's relatively liberalized immigration policy means we're taking in migrants from all walks of life.

The proof of this is borne out in opinion polling of EU-external immigrants. For example, Turks who move to America have political opinions about Erdogan in line with the American mainstream - that is to say, they hate him as much as I do, if not more. Turks who move to Germany support Erdogan even more than Turks that did not emigrate.

To make matters worse, this property is self-perpetuating. A random immigrant from one of these countries will fall back upon their local diaspora population for support. In America that means making friends with people from all walks of life. In Germany that means joining an illegal far-right[1] Turkish biker gang.

The problem Europe has right now is not entirely foreign to American history. The restrictive, racist immigration policy America used to have was itself a reaction to the time in which America's immigration policy was "lol"[3]. Immigration used to be a matter of showing up to Ellis Island and answering a few questions. A crop failure and famine in Ireland, as well as widespread poverty in Sicily, triggered two huge waves of crisis migration to a country that had little Italian or Irish already. This naturally triggered a crime wave, followed by a white backlash that resulted in the nadir of American race relations and the passage of those racist policies.

Not that far off from Europe today, right? But at the same time, it's proof that this is a solvable problem, because America already solved it. We saw the problems with having a large Italian and Irish underclass and implemented programs and policies specifically to include and integrate them. The result is... nobody cares. The organized crime that followed the immigrants died out because we smothered it in a blanket of good job opportunities and inclusion programs. Unless you're teaching a New York State history class, you might not even know about any of this. America doesn't have a racial barrier between Irish or Italian immigrants and the rest of the country anymore. They're just... there.

[0] As a European you are probably arguing that America does not have cities because of our comically awful public transportation networks. That is true, but New York City is both the heavy rail capital of the country and the immigration capital of the country, so...

[1] In case this isn't obvious: the Muslims taking over your country are just as worried about western culture taking over theirs. Far-right ideology requires an other that has also adopted (or is perceived to adopt) the same far-right ideology with the labels swapped.

[2] To be clear, America also has visa programs that do this. Those are the ones the Mexican cartels are abusing; because they're designed to create a legal and economic niche for slave labor and human trafficking.

[3] Unless you were Asian. Fun fact: South Asians used to actually pretend to be black in order to avoid this!