Europe has a 'real opportunity' to take in Americans fleeing Trump. Is it ready for a 'brain drain'?
Europe has a 'real opportunity' to take in Americans fleeing Trump. Is it ready for a 'brain drain'?
123 comments
-
Other places bad isn’t really an excuse for us to suck as well
-
Not bad. Infinitely worse.
And truly. Having frontier control and regulations is not even bad.
Also, most Europeans are not racist. Your analysis on why Ukrainian refugees are treated differently than syrian refugees (for instance) is incredibly shallow. As people take in consideration a lot more things when judging a person, and attributing it to skin color is just to make yourself a nice strawman to attack.
It's perfectly valid to be able to have control on who you want to share your life with, as it will wildly influence your own life and well being.
-
I honestly made an argument using facts to back it up ,and your reaction so far has been whataboutism and deflection. I’m also not sure how exactly you would argue against this when most European countries have right wing (extremist) governments right now and do I really have to explain that a core feature of right wingers is to hate immigrants?
-
You facts:
-People racists because I said so.
The fact that you just said that MOST european countries have extremist right wing governments just said everything that needs to be said. And how you generalize to everyone who vote for any right or centrist party without even care for their reasons to do so... Also systematic downvoting every comment of anyone not agreeing with you shows a specific character trait.
There's nothing to argue here. That's my bad.
Have a good day.
-
Is the Wikipedia article on logical fallacies a bucket list for you?
If everything I’m saying is so obviously wrong it should be super easy to make a sound argument against mine instead of just trying to derail the discussion.
-
Is the Wikipedia article on logical fallacies a bucket list for you?
@daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com Ftr, the rules of this community specifically say not to do this. I am leaving this entire thread here, because I think @shaserlark did a great job -- but let me emphasize that institutionalized racism is not good and you rushing to defend it here is not good either.
-
I take you are a mod, my app doesn't show mods of communities for some reason.
Just a fair and square question. As you quote the fallacy thing.
And please be sincere. As it would be very important for my continuity in this community even in lemmy as a whole.
Why my supposed fallacies are being judged here but not his? He made fallacies also. Are the fallacies on the question or it's the opinion?
Can anything be debated here? As in would you allow opinions that are different than yours on the slightest?
Because at no point I defended any kind of racism, not institutionalized not anything. It would be irrational, as I'm clearly against racism, I consider racism something terrible thus why I get offended when not racist people get accused of being racist.
You clearly agree with the other part. Are you giving me heat because of that? If so please I need a list of what can be said exactly in this community.
Because I would defend in from of a judge with a cristaline conscience, that migration or border policies different from completely open borders are not racism. And that I don't think the European Union have racist policies written in their law with the purpose of putting people down for their race. Quite the contrary I think the European Union have done wonders integrating races, and teaching everyone here not to be racist through incredible programs and policies with foreign countries (including the mentioned refugee programs) and forcing eu members to remove any racial law from their legislation.
If even that sentence cannot be debated here, please let me know. And put it more clear in the rules to which political party do you need to be affiliated to be allowed to post here.
Because calling the EPP or Renew Europe racist just because (and you say nothing about that) feels completely antieuropean. And I don't even vote for those parties, btw (I don't vote), but it hurts me very much when radicalization demonize normal people that may vote or belong to a party for whatever reason.
That's my two cents, from here do what you want to do.
Have a good day.
This will be my last contribution to this community at least from a while. I don't think this particular moderation action was well done or contributive to the benefit of the community or Lemmy as a whole, sorry. If you don't agree with me you could argue with me as a normal user, same as I have done with the other person, with arguments from both sides, each one giving our opinion, which are normal, either of us are defending anything bad, we just disagree on what consists a racist policy, or what European border and immigration policies should be better. I think both me and the other user (and you) agree on all humans being born equal with the same fundamental rights. But confronting a normal opinion with moderative actions from a moderator account is not great.
And just some final though. I think it's disheartening that more and more it feels like you need to have a very specific political affiliation to participate in Lemmy in general. You are free to look at my posts, here in c/europe and in many other communites, I think my political affiliation is very clear from what I write. And see what kind of policial ideas have a person that more and more feels uncomfortable here.
I'm sorry if this comment read angry or heated. But you must understand that in this space you are the authority, and it's not the same being confronted from equal to equal any difference of opinion we could have (that's why we are here to read what other people have to say) than to be confronted by moderation. If from your heart you really think that this moderation was needed because I, and only I, broke the rules and not because your own opinions made you make this action so be it. But from my opinion the authority broke the neutrality needed for good moderation here.
-
-
I would and I will. But I have little hopes for a rational discussion.
European are not racists. If white people would come by sea in the same conditions as african people come they would face the same fate. The prove to this argument have two evidences. Black people migrating from America does not face those issues. And white people immigrating from south America do face integration issues.
Also while being both white Ukrainian migrants tend to face way different inclusion issues than Romanian immigrants.
There are none racial laws whatsoever in europe and have not been for ages. This is not one of those countries that have actual racism written in the law of have had it until very recently.
So it's clear and evident that race or skin color is not of relevance for European people when they chose if they want to be welcoming to someone or not.
And not wanting fully open borders does not make anyone racist or a extremist. Many would argue that open borders is actually an extremist political view. And the moderate approach is border control. Having completely closed borders is the other extremist approach that is evidently not being implemented not even proposed, by any european government.
Also by every definition of extremist right wing, we could not consider most european governments as such. As most of them fall under one of three groups. S&D moderate left, EPP moderate right and Renew Europe, centre-right. Most governments are lead from a prime minister of one of those groups. None of which is extreme right. There are very few european countries actually lead by extremists. And there's no evidence whatsoever that people who vote for Renew or EPP (I don't know if you even include S&D as right wing extremist, I wouldn't be surprised) are racists, or have racism as a core trait of their politics. As racism is not in their parties manifestos, politics, or campaigns.
-
I would say your entire argument is based on an approach where you create a definition of racism that's extremely narrow and then claim it doesn't exist in Europe because it doesn't meet your specific criteria.
Frontex literally pushes people back at sea where they drown, sends people to places where they're tortured and raped, and we collectively allow this to happen. That's institutionalized racism whether you like it or not.
Your claim that "if white people came by sea they'd face the same fate" is a hypothetical that can't be verified - it's a classic counterfactual fallacy. The reality is that we don't see masses of white people drowning in the Mediterranean while the EU turns a blind eye.
You're also trying to define racism only as "racial laws" which is an incredibly narrow definition that no sociologist would accept. Structural racism manifests in policies, practices, and institutions - it doesn't require explicit "whites only" signs to exist.
Regarding Ukrainian refugees versus other refugee groups: initially there was indeed more acceptance based on perceived cultural similarity and yes, race. But as I already mentioned, even Ukrainian refugees are now being scapegoated by politicians in Poland, Hungary and other countries. The pattern is clear - initial acceptance followed by growing hostility.
The European Parliament groupings you mention are irrelevant to my argument. I was clearly talking about national politics where far-right parties have either gained power or significant influence in Hungary, Italy, Austria, Sweden, Netherlands, France and Germany among others.
Your attempt to frame this as "open borders extremism" versus "moderate border control" is a classic false dichotomy. There's a massive difference between reasonable border management and letting people drown at sea, which is what Frontex does.
I stand by what I said - Europe has deeply ingrained xenophobia, and Americans coming here will discover that too once the novelty wears off. They'll be blamed for housing problems, job market issues, and changing the culture - just like every other immigrant group before them.
-
So if we have no comparison on what would happen with white people coming by sea why would you assume is racism.
I gave the counterexample you conveniently ignored that's black people coming by other means or from other country facing no discrimination or way different integration issues.
The life of a USA black person, a south American Black person and an African Black person is on average completely different in europe. So race is not considered here. It's not a narrow racism definition, it's no racism because race does not have any weight in the equation on how someone is valued or not in europe.
If we where racism we would be doing the same to black americans and we are not. So the issue is different. The reason some people are treated differently is other, not race. That's just evident because plenty of black people face no issues whatsoever. And plenty of black people face way different issues that those faced by africans who come by the Mediterranean.
I live in a place where most black population is not African but American. And they have the same integration issues as white Americans, despite having a completely different skin color. Because those issues have different roots that race.
This is not the USA or other countries where race it's taken into account for how people are treated, and thus we could talk about racism. In USA there's plenty of people now who where alive when racial laws where still in place, way different situation than in Europe, same rethorics could not apply.
-
You're cherry-picking examples and artificially narrowing this to "Black Americans vs. African migrants" when my original point was about Europe's broader treatment of migrants and refugees from many backgrounds.
Why are we suddenly only discussing Black people? My original comments covered migrants from various regions, including Middle Eastern refugees, Ukrainians, and Southern Europeans. This selective focus is a distraction from the systemic issues I highlighted.
Even if we accept your unsupported claim about differential treatment (which needs actual evidence), it doesn't disprove discrimination - it just shows how xenophobia intersects with class, perceived cultural compatibility, and legal status.
The documented policy failures at Europe's borders affect migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, various African nations, and elsewhere. Focusing on how "Black Americans face no issues" (which is itself questionable) ignores the thousands who drown in the Mediterranean or face abuse in detention centers.
Let's return to the actual evidence: Europe has policies that result in documented human rights abuses at borders. We criminalize rescue operations. We fund dictatorships to stop migrants before they reach us. We've created a system where people die rather than receive help.
These aren't opinions - they're documented facts. Whether you call it racism, xenophobia or "migration management," we've normalized treating certain groups of human beings as disposable.
-
But you are saying. Because people who come in handmade boats drown in the sea we are racist. There is no logical correlation between those two issues.
You just want to stamp a negative connotation label on us over that.
The fact that we want to control who enters our countries does not make us racist. That's just a fact, as it does not fit into the definition of racism. Race have nothing to do with it.
Wanting to control immigration is not racism.
Racisms is making policies to harm people of different colour (or race) living in our country. Our politics have nothing to so with race, but with border control. We don't care of the colour of the skin, we just care that they are coming through an unregulated migrational path, that it's actually pretty dangerous to them. We are not even actually trying to kill anybody.
And it's of maximum importance to considere the massive amount of immigrants of all races and colours that come to Europe by different migrational path and face not those issues. So it's EVIDENT that the treatment to those who come on handmade boats are caused by HOW the come, and not by what their colour or race is.
Are people of the exact same race coming by plane sinking in the sea by european policies? No, then race is not the cause.
Also, sorry, but the voices of a few politicians of two countries about Ukrainian refugees does not make EUROPE.
It's also very important to differentiate the concepts of not supporting immigration, or wanting to have control over the borders to the concept of racism. As they have nothing to do with each other, once again racism here is just used as a punitive label, a fallacy of those you like so much, to avoid talking seriously about the pros and cons on different border and immigration policies.
-
Your argument is a perfect example of how we sanitize our migration policies with euphemisms. "Border control" sounds neutral and reasonable, but what we're really talking about is active policies that regularly result in preventable deaths.
Frontex doesn't just "control borders" - they push migrants back to Libya where they face documented torture and sexual violence. They don't accidentally fail to rescue people - they actively avoid responding to distress calls. These aren't unintended consequences; they're the designed outcome of policies meant to create a "deterrent effect."
Whether it's technically "racism" by your narrow definition is beside the point. The reality is we apply completely different standards to different groups of migrants. When Ukrainians needed refuge, we quickly created special protection status. When Syrian doctors needed refuge, we let their families drown in the Mediterranean. The difference isn't "HOW they come" - it's who they are and where they're from.
Your claim that "we don't care about the color of their skin" is contradicted by statements from European politicians who explicitly advocated for Ukrainian refugees because they were "European" with "blue eyes and blonde hair" (as multiple news anchors and politicians stated in 2022).
And yes, a "few politicians" absolutely represent broader European attitudes when they're leading political parties and setting policy. Friedrich Merz isn't some random person - he's likely to be Germany's next Chancellor. When these politicians face no meaningful backlash for their statements, it reveals societal acceptance.
The problem isn't that we want functioning migration systems. It's that we've created a two-tier system where people from certain regions are forced into deadly routes and then blamed for taking them, while we pretend this isn't connected to who they are.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
123 comments