No one is answering so ill take it as a NO
Has Any far right Government in the world actually stopped immigration?
While the immigration rate is low, Cuba's immigration policies aren't that restrictive, requiring only 5 years of residency and being able to speak Spanish to begin the citizenship process.
So if you choose to do two degrees in Cuba, you can apply for citizenship after that.
Getting into Cuba isn't the problem. It's getting out.
I know literally nothing about Cuba. If I move there and then want to leave they won’t let me? I’m from EU if that matters
Yes you can with no problem. It was more of a dig at the living conditions and the emigration of Cuban nationals. I live in southern US and Cubans were fleeing Cuba in make shift rafts by the thousands in the 90's. Every other week you would hear about a desperate group of people lashing together 4 barrels and trying to paddle 90 miles of ocean to get to Florida or something just a crazy. Sometimes they would pile so many people into a tiny boat and try it they would sink it in rough waters and just be hanging on when they are found. I have always wondered how many were just never spotted and disappeared in the ocean. And how bad your life has to be to try something that crazy.
And it's still happening today. As far as I know they don't care if you leave its just that life was so hard and many are so poor they want out but have no means to do so. The coast guard still regularly has to pick up desperate immigrants they find stranded in the ocean.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/historic-wave-cuban-migrants-florida-impact-lasting-rcna61989
This article from 2021 talks about 6000 they found at sea and another 30,000 that tried to illegally cross at the Mexican border and how many were sent back.
And how bad your life has to be to try something that crazy.
The collapse of the Soviet Union caused an economic catastrophe in Cuba during the 90s, as the pillar of their economy was effectively ripped out from under them. Cubans call it the "Special Period". A similar thing happened in North Korea during the 90s, exacerbated by bad harvests.
They are, in effect, being strangled until they relent to foreign ownership and pressure. The trigger for the sanctions was land reform and nationalizing US owned assets, with oil being the unsurprising main reason.
Off topic, but the shirtless guy operating the carriage in the picture on the page I linked has a slick-ass hair cut.
I really dig his hair-shirt under the open floral short-sleeve. I thought I had a lot of chest hair, is that actually a shirt?!? Honestly asking...
I think it is his chest hair, the resolution isn't high enough to be 100% sure though.
Well living under siege is rarely fun, and they've been under siege for more than half a century. If you take that into account, the living conditions they manage to have are actually way better than anyone might expect.
They aren't under siege ? They are under commercial embargos by the US
If you want a country under siege, the best example would likely be something like Eritrea, or even Yemen.
À tight economic embargo plus good deal of military pressure plus diplomatic isolation, not to forget well over 100 assassination attempts against Castro... Whatever the term it creates a fairly hostile environment.
That applies to Cuban citizens.
Like, tons of my friends vacation there regularly, tons of my professors have taught there, and one of my classmates is a journalism student from Cuba. It isn't exactly hard to come and go.
should have read my next post. I said the same thing. I was commenting on everyone who has to live there permanently. Cuba doesn't care if you come and go.
That's the citizenship process. Immigration process would be what are the requirements to get a visa to live there.
Big if
Why big if? Some fantastic universities in Cuba. They're renowned for some of the best med-schools in the world.
One is a island, the other is a peninsula that borders their mortal enemy.
Was just thinking that. One is a literal island and the other may as well be (good luck getting to the rest of the continent through N.Korea).
Implicit in OP's question is that they're looking for examples of countries that had some moderate to high levels of immigration and the government (specifically far right, as they're generally the ones running most vehemently against immigration) was able to curb it.
To be fair, the large scale immigration we see today is relatively new in the last century and a half or so. There's not a ton of history to look back to for examples.
I'd also say that Nazi Germany did succeed at this, mainly by making it such a fucking miserable place to live that no one wanted to move there. That's the path to actually succeeding at curbing immigration: destroy your country to the extent that it's no longer a desirable destination for immigrants.
Although Germany's "success" was somewhat short-lived, in generational terms.
I’m not sure why you would disregard the far right portion of the question. OP could be interested if far right governments, that claim to have the solution to immigration, live up to their hype.
Can I get an example of what is being talked about? A country with a far right government that claims to want to stop immigration?
Disregarding any claims of efficacy of their solutions, I'm not sure I understand the premise in the first place. Like, the Taliban in Afghanistan is far right, but I doubt that they are battling trying to reduce immigration to Afghanistan.
I know that right wing politicains in the west have run on this topic a lot, but not many have actually won election so we don't really know. The US is the most prominent with Trump, and he didn't do so well at reducing immigration. Its a talking point in elections in European countries like the UK, France, Sweden, etc. but those parties that emphasized immigration never gained control of those the governments.
So with my limited knowledge my answer right now would be no, the only example I can think of is Trump and he failed to stop immigration. But thats like asking "has any country tried to land a man on the moon and failed?" Well no, but we only have a sample size of 1 country that even tried to land a man on the moon so it doesn't really say much about the difficulty or potential success rate of that endeavor.
The question assumes that far right governments, as they exist now, want to stop immigration.
The right wing loves illegal immigration because:
1.) They get to beat the crap out of the left wing over it.
2.) They get a ready source of essentially slave labor to exploit and abuse.
Just my assumption but I have a hunch the question was in regard to western governments. So Trump like you said or the Brits who all campaigned on Brexit.
But maybe OP will clarify.
Important to note that Japan and South Korea are both projecting critical population issues due to their immigration policies. Aging population causing worker shortages and ballooning Healthcare costs etc.
They have population issues because they want women to destroy their careers in order to have children. Also, horrible working conditions. Both problems are cultural in nature.
Same as in many developed countries.
It’s language. US work culture is horrible too, and we’re going more to the right everyday. No parental support at all, heck roe v wade being repealed endangers abortion rights. Oh and the US works more hours per year than Japan, without a government law mandating vacation.
US birth rate is nearing Japan’s (1.6 vs 1.3 in Japan). It’s just the US can grow their pop through immigration since English is the most widely spoken language in the world. While Japanese is one of the lowest second languages in the world.
Fun fact: Spain’s birth rate is LOWER than Japan’s, and they work like half an hour a week (I’m exaggerating), with incredible family support from the government. I think the issue of population growth/decline is a lot more complex than just work culture.
It's still a massive factor. You can't just ask for more inmigration since a country can only take migrants at a certain rate to allow them to adop the local culture. The total number of migrants is not as important as the rate they get in.
If they enter in bigger than acceptable numbers, they will try to keep their own culture which is no good since many of them come from places where a lot of the values a western country considers important are thought as non important or even heretic.
Of course, once the migrants adapt to your country, they will also show the same low numbers of birth rates per woman, since the problem is SOMETHING in our system.
"I think the issue of population growth/decline is a lot more complex than just work culture", so I do not disagree with that, but also do not agree since work culture also should include:
A safe place to put your children.
Certainty that you will be able to send them to university if they wish so.
Certainty for the women that she will get to safely deliver her child (which includes paid maternity leave for a reasonable amount of time).
Help from the government to companies that lose a valuable employee for weeks or even months but still have to pay them.
Catch up programs in place at work so women dont fall too behind in the corporative ladder because of pregnancies (otherwise they have to choose between having a career or having a child).
Besides all that, and this may trigger some people, but we need to promote nuclear familes and ensure THEY CAN GET A PLACE TO LIVE OF THEIR OWN. At the same time, the current sistematic misoginy and also the recently raising missandry in our social media should be addressed.
Will that be enough? No, but work stability, a social network and a stable marriage are a nice start.
Why is a low birth rate problem? Scandinavia, which is often rated (by the white English speaking internet) as the best place in the world to live (I disagree, as Asia is always left out of these lists). Absolutely amazing, supposedly. And yet their birth rate is also well below 2. What’s the problem there?
Also, why do you start with ‘immigration’ and then start calling people ‘migrants’? Why don’t you consider them, oh I don’t know…immigrants? I was born in Asia and moved to the US. Am I a migrant? I guess yes in your eyes yes.
Emphasizing national fertility over immigration is just a right wing dog whistle. One of the lowest birth rates in Europe is Hungary. They don’t say ‘more immigrants.’ They say we need true blooded Hungarians. They need a certain type of person. The ‘correct’ person. Not unwanted ‘migrants.’ Yuck. Dirty. Filthy. See how that borders on aryan rhetoric?
One thing I'll point out is that immigration is not a long-term solution, if you're looking as far as the middle of this century, world population is projected to drop below replacement level in the 2060s. So rather than the current symbiotic relationship of people in countries with a too high birth rate moving to those with lower than sustainable birth rates, immigration will merely be shifting the problem around.
I’m Korean and no, we are not.
Almost everyone in the world including my country doesn’t know that my country has been accepting immigrants especially from china for at least years.
Even I found it out a few months ago bc it’s obviously not told to us and others. Like even we all think we don’t accept any immigrants, but you can easily find out that we do if you google in korean. All from official websites.
They only seemed to advertised in china though.
Kinda get it bc so many koreans are ethnically chinese.
Anyway there seem to be several ways of being an immigrant here but the most simple ways are you buy an apartment and keeps it for a few years or put your money in a bank for a few years or else would get you a green card.
Simple af. You’d even get money (interest rate) if you put money in a bank.
They said you can even vote and get national healthcare benefits after getting it.
Foreigners have no idea our government has been spending fuck tons and tons of money to make foreigners to come to korea as a travel or whatever, or to make koreans get married to foreigners (especially chinese), to make them stay here, make k-culture popular globally with tax, and all for years and years.
Not bc of low birth rates. My country always has been crazy for foreigners like they’re fucking horny whores to foreigners.
Fucking sick of those motherfuckers bc koreans are treated like third citizens here.
Everything is not like the government tells you and to the world. They always skip/hide the critical points.
If you guys know korean and research fucking deep about my country, you guys would think it’s a fucking fucked up fuck country
Japan isn't restrictive provided you've got a job lined up. It was actually less fuss to get a five year work visa than what I've had to go through to get a tourist visa elsewhere.
Yeah but work-related immigration is not the only type of immigration, and it's certainly not the one people most often talk about from the perspective of humanitarianism etc.
There is a whopping 1,400 people with refugee status in Japan in this moment. That is absolute peanuts compared to other countries. Moreover, Japan's total net immigration rate was at like 0.5 per 1000 people in 2023 (0.05%) which is also a very, very small amount compared to other developed counterparts.
They also have half the us population crammed on a series of islands that altogether is about the size of California on a map... Just saying, that might have something to do with it.
Japan's got interesting demographic distributions, basically you've got wide swathes of countryside and then clusters of extreme population density. What's interesting about that is that, unlike in the US, Russia, Norway, Australia etc. those broad stretches of land aren't really uninhabitable tundra or deserts, they're just somewhat mountainous. Not Alaska or Tibet mountainous, like Colorado/Tennessee.
this guy thinks Japan isn't a far right government lol
Islands are generally pretty good at not have immigration issues if they want to stop people.
Japan and South Korea falling to pieces with low birth rates due to horrible gender cohesion and hyper capitalist work culture is the definition of far right governments. They refuse to do social progress and are too incompetent to do normal neoliberal capitalism.
They are super racist and manage to minimize immigration...to their own detriment and peril.
Side note, DPRK is fascist, that's as far right as it gets, and Cuba is under embargo by US hegemony, so it's not surprising they can't support normal travel.
Not sure about Korea, but if you define Japan and far right, then you would consider these policies far right?:
strict gun control. national health insurance. national geriatric care insurance. nationally mandated childcare facilities. paid parental leave for both fathers and mothers. easy access to abortion. legal and customary protection against sudden mass layoffs. a constitutionally guaranteed right of workers to form unions.
Let’s assume this is all far right. Then the US is….a ticking time bomb?
The population decline in Japan is language. Japanese is one of the lowest second languages in the world, while English is the most spoken language overall in the world. That makes immigration tough in Japan unless you’re really motivated (but guess what…you don’t even have to speak Japanese to get PR per the government rules, while the US has a literal English comprehension test). The US’s birth rate is actually near Japan’s, and Japan’s birth rate is higher than Spain’s (so Spain is now far right?). And the US works more hours per year than Japan without any law mandating vacation.
Calling Japan far right is not right. I think it's better to call the country conservative. They've taken their own roads. There's no religion taking over politics there, thus they don't struggle with things like legality of abortion. But they are very socially conservative, which shows in there being shame to be gay, women are expected to do their "womenly duties" etc. Kinda stuck in pre-1990s in many ways compared to Western nations.
I agree with everything you said, good points. Yes, Japan does have socially progressive parts but overall is very very conservative.
If a nation must be quintessentially fascist in all aspects to be considered far right, then words mean nothing.
And yes, the US is hyper conservative. Look at our highest court. Look at our recent presidents. Look at poverty rates. Look at educational stats. Look at health and social services. Look at foreign policy.
The US is a ticking bomb. Couldn't have said it better myself. You can't win an argument by vaugely gesturing at the US and saying "America bad", because I live here, I know.
And we're not talking about just birth rate, for which Japan is about 1.3 and US is 1.7. We're talking about immigration. The US has a HUGE influx of immigrants. So our population continues to increase. SK and JP have or are approaching population decrease, which any sociologist will tell you is bad.
I agree, but how does that account for Japan’s low immigration? If you say gender cohesion causes low birth rates, why does hypermysogenist Latin America have a high birth rate? If toxic work culture creates a birth rate of 0.8 in Korea, then why does the toxic work culture of the US create double the birth rate? (Coupled with zero parental leave or parental support, no paid vacation, and sky high student loans in the states and yet the birth rate is double). Why is nationalist rhetoric always focused on birth rate? These fuckin women, am I right? They need to do their duty and create more (insert country) babies. Nationalistic rhetoric never talks positivity about immigration, cuz immigrants are the ‘wrong type’ of people. And I’m not just looking at Asia. You as an American are well aware of the media scare of the ‘migrant crisis’ which they are also now moving to include the big baddie of 2024 which is anything Chinese. Notice how they never say immigrant.
My hypothesis of why at least Japan’s (I’m not knowledgeable about Korea) population is falling is language, leading to very low immigration. Immigration policy to become a PR in Japan is relatively easy, much much easier than the US. You don’t even have to speak Japanese. But! To live comfortably in Japan, you need to speak Japanese, and getting a job is much much easier with Japanese especially if you are low skilled. English is widely taught worldwide. Japanese? Not so much so. And those who enjoy the benefits of white supremacy don’t much enjoy becoming a minority.
It’s NOT lack of safety, mysogeny, mysandry, lack of social support, lack of parental services, or antifamily policies. Japan (besides the mysogeny part) has the opposite of all that. The US as you know is extremely anti family and anti child, regular school shooting drills, unaffordable housing, and dangerous student loans, and yet immigrants will stop at nothing to move there.
Japan is an island, and South Korea is in a peninsula blocked by a hostile neighbor for immigration by land. Those are huge contributing factors to their immigration than any politics.
Also, side note to your side note both North Korea and Cuba are pretty far right, as that brand of "communism" is just fascism cribbing a marxist aesthetic.
Has there ever been a brand of communism that wasn’t also authoritarian? (At the level of a sovereign state; I’m not talking about a commune or kibbutz.)
There’s obviously a lot of horseshoe theory at play when we’re talking totalitarian governments, but like… if you consider Cuba to be “far right,” I’m not sure what “far right”—or “far left,” for that matter—even mean anymore.
Communism is a classless, stateless society. None of them have approached that even slightly. The fact the USSR cracked down on trade unionosts and backed authoritarian states against socialist and anarchist groups should tell you everything.
Cuba, I'm a little more sympathetic to because it neighbors the US which tried to use a terrorist cell with the CIA to overflow after backing it prior, which drove them into the arms of the USSR politically. They had a turn towards authoritarianism after the bay of pigs. The USSR on the other hand hadn't been anything remotely "left" since the 20's.
Japan and S. Korea probably are helped by the fact that one is an island and the other is a peninsula, so it's very straightforward to enforce a border. That being said, I believe Japan has been bringing in South Asian workers to perform low skill labor jobs lately as birthrates decline
So are England, Spain and Italy...
Canada is half a world away from Africa and southern Asia, and yet...
What’s interesting about Japan and S Korea is that they both have no crossable border except ocean. The water has kept them able to detect most immigrants.
Important to note that these countries are either islands or effectively island (dmv in Korea) and thus make it difficult to immigrate to and emigrate from
I mean so is the UK and they figure it out, and there's more difficult places to reach than them who also make it work.
Yeah true thats a good point havent thought of that
Japan is a fairly isolated island chain and s. Korea is similar. Might as well be an island. It's a lot easier for them to stop immigration when the methods of entering the country are so limited.
They're in one of the most populated parts of the world, they choose not to take that many people in.
Japan’s not restrictive at all, you don’t even have to speak Japanese per the official rules. The ‘restriction’ is cultural, being the language which makes living there difficult unless you’re very determined to learn it. Very few people speak Japanese as a second language, and the country uses virtually no English. You could get a job that requires no Japanese, get the work sponsor, and fulfill the minimum years to get permanent residency (5 years…less if you have certain qualifications). But daily living will still be tough if you don’t know the language. But as far as government rules, no it’s not difficult to get PR or even citizenship.
The most widely spoken language in the world? English. Meaning why the US can almost infinitely grow their population through immigration despite having a birth rate approaching Japan’s (1.6 in the US vs 1.3 in Japan).
Japan is an island and S. Korea is a peninsula surrounded by water and it's only land access is through a communist distopian. Your examples suck because these are countries in which geography makes them anomalies.
Japan has actually relaxed their immigration rules in the last couple of years.
That has to do with the countries anyways though. Just look at Europe, where Western European countries are full of migrants, while Eastern European countries are not full of (non-European) migrants, despite not all of them having far right-governments, like Slovenia or Bulgaria!
It depends on what you mean by "stop" and how far back you're going in history. Immigrants are usually going from a bad situation in their country to a better situation in a new country, typically to flee poor economies and/or violence, which may be due to war but can also be caused by local gangs.
In the modern day, North Korea has pretty much zero immigration. They control the flow of people and their borders with ruthless bureaucracy and brutality. But also nobody in their right mind wants to go there because their economy is awful and their government is extremely oppressive.
Many other nations in the world have zero or negative immigration, too, because they are objectively horrible places to live. A lot of these governments may be described as "right wing," insomuch as they use traditional values to promote violence against minority groups and they promote business interests over the needs of the people. But it's difficult to completely map the Western idea of "right wing" politics on non-Western nations like Sudan, Syria, and Myanmar.
Russia may be another nation that has negative immigration, due to the war with Ukraine. Here you can also see the right wing government of Putin actively hiding any information about immigration. These right wing governments tend not to be truthful about what is happening. Putin actually wants immigration from ex-USSR countries in order to fuel the Russian economy and their war machine. (But they don't want non-white people, because racism is an essential part of the anti-immigration agenda of right wing regimes.)
Historically, the Empire of Japan once had zero immigration. They had extremely tight controls on the entrance of foreigners, going so far as to only allow foreign traders to visit a specific little island in order to do business. Even today, post Empire, Japan has extremely tight immigration laws, and while it allows many foreign workers, it's extremely hard to become an actual citizen.
And of course there's Nazi Germany, which reversed immigration by repelling its Jewish citizens, at first with threats and economic penalties like taking away their jobs, and then with violence, and then with systematic removal, and then came the "Final Solution." They also expanded their borders through invasion, which could be seen as a forced immigration to acquire people, then they did the same with the Jewish populations there. Throughout this, they wanted the "right" people to come to Germany (so-called Aryans), and Hitler used antisemitic and racist rhetoric to remove the "wrong" people. Similar to Russia now, these extreme right wing regimes actually want more people because they need them for their economy and their war machines, but they resort to violent invasions when their domestic policies cause population loss.
r/movingtonorthkorea was a funny satirical sub until actual tankies took it over. The people there are actually unbelievable.
Historically, the Empire of Japan once had zero immigration. They had extremely tight controls on the entrance of foreigners, going so far as to only allow foreign traders to visit a specific little island in order to do business. Even today, post Empire, Japan has extremely tight immigration laws, and while it allows many foreign workers, it's extremely hard to become an actual citizen.
This was the policy of sakoku (closed country), which lasted from 1633-1853 under the Tokugawa Shogunate (1603-1868), not the Empire of Japan (1868-1947).
Make your country enough of a shithole and you'll stop immigration.
I've never seen a government with a goal of stopping immigration. It's usually about reducing immigration from poor countries.
No government wants to reduce immigration from poor countries, those people are great for keeping wages low. Their rich donors love that.
Far right governments are even worse: they do some flashy, headline-worthy stuff (that is absolutely useless in curbing immigration), but in secret they love having immigrants because the xenophobia gets them votes.
In the Netherlands we for the last 25 or so years had at best a center right government (parlement system where the government exist mostly from the right wing block) if not outright right wing government.
Yet for all of the immigration hate during every election the right wing promised to curb immigration again. One would they could do it during the last two decades but weird how that didn’t work out.
What about Geert Wilders? Do you think he'll actually control illegal immigration?
He’s not going to be PM
This is what I sometimes find frustrating in the binary rhetoric of right and left wing.
Immigration might be a progressive value associated with the left, but economically it’s fundamentally capitalist.
While you are somewhat correct, “they” don’t really want to stop them either. They are the backbone of manual unskilled labor across the board and are easily exploitable.
They are also extremely convenient to use as scapegoats to scare certain types of voters and “news” consumers into continuing voting and watching while never having to actually do anything.
Around 2010, Israel used to get tens of thousands of immigrants from Sudan and Erithrea a year. The right-wing government decided to stop it, built a huge wall along the border and it stopped immigration entirely.
From 20,000+ a year to a couple dozen. So yeah, it does work sometimes.
So walls work?
Doesnt Israel heavily patrol it with alot more people and have more defenses there?
Walls work if you understand their uses and limitations. A wall is not an active defender, all a wall does is buy active defenders time to respond to an attack. If you need more time to respond, you have to build a bigger and better and more expensive wall... but this also increases the incentive to choose another path around the wall entirely. Putting a wall by itself in the middle of nowhere and expecting it will accomplish anything is foolish; you need to calculate how long it takes to get past and how long it is going to take you to respond. A wall won't work if the math doesn't check out.
this guy defends
This wall works. Having guarded it myself during my military service, I can say it's very effective. The "asylum seekers" (all of them men of ages 17-45) would walk around the Egyptian side of the fence, we would watch them and stop any who tried messing with it. They could go to another section but it's the desert and they only have so much water on them.
Eventually we would hand them some water and tell them to fuck off to the official border crossing if they want to request asylum.
I wish we would do that here. Sadly, our current administration wants everyone here.
How fucking ironic is it that Israel is the only country that people can name in this thread.
Those weren’t legal immigrants.
Neither are the ones in Europe. Once you reach a signatory country in the asylum agreement (for example Turkey, Greece, Spain), other countries are under no obligation to offer you asylum.
Besides, it seems the asylum process has to change. The immigration issue has caused many people to vote in anti-democratic parties simply because they say they will kick out the immigrants.
Europe gets plenty of legal immigrants as does Israel, Idk which one OP aid referring to exactly. Regardless, if countries pushed for sovereignty instead of subjecting themselves to international agreements and deported any infiltrator that got through then the people will calm down.
Israel the king of this, legal immigration is restricted to Jews and asylum is denied 99% of the time. Immigration is a non-issue, besides the Eritreans that haven’t been deported yet in Tel Aviv
Authoritative government's never have immigration problems, regardless of government being far right or far left.
Those government's have a hard time retaining their citizens.
They make the country such a shit hole place to live that nobody wants to go there.
Hungary is getting 1 million euro fines from the EU every day for stopping migration as we speak
Lol, while greece spends 1.8B on letting them in. Or failing to keep them out.
I doubt there were many foreigners trying to get into Nazi Germany. Unless you count Allied soldiers.
Maybe not at the end, but the I'm sure there were plenty of Henry Fords ready to go there.
A party that is against illegal immigration is not against immigration, per se. Wanting to have some control over immigration is not far right.
I mention this only for the sake of clarity, as somehow these concepts get confused so often.
So again, one is NOT far right for not wanting open borders. And one is NOT against immigration for being against illegal immigration.
Same with allowing legal immigration and allowing legal refugees and legal asylum seekers are not the same as having an "open border", as well
Asylum-seeking laws are totally broken though.
So long as we don't stretch the meaning of "refugee" and "asylum seeker" to include migrants looking for a place they can make more money, agreed.
Even refugees shouldn't be accepted in my opinion. It's not the responsibility of other countries to deal with that.
And yet, find me a politician who has proposed making legal immigration easier who isn't also left leaning or at best centrist.
Yes, being anti-illegal immigration doesn't make you far right. But being far right typically also means you're anti-immigration in general, not just illegal immigration.
I'd also say that you won't find a politician who is pro-illegal immigration. They might be softer on immigrants, sure, but no politician is saying "Yes, I think illegal immigration is better than legal immigration." They typically want to make the system easier and more efficient.
I agree that no politician will say he's for illegal immigration. He'll just allow it, and shrug.
I don't know that making legal immigration easier is a requirement of being in favor of immigration. It seems to me, at any rate, that getting on top of illegal immigration would precede encouraging legal immigration.
Say you want 3.5 million legal immigrants a year, and currently you have 2.5 million, but you also have 2.5 million illegal immigrants a year. It's reasonable to want to address the crisis of illegal immigration first.
Me personally, I really like immigration, and I'd be happy to double the number of legal immigrants. I just don't like de facto open borders.
The best way to deal with illegal immigration is to make the legal immigration process easier. That's the best measure, short of shooting them on sight, which I think we can all agree is a bad idea. The reason people come from the southern border illegally is not because they don't want to deal with the paperwork. It's because, if they don't get over quickly, their families will suffer or die. I don't know if you've dealt with the US immigration system, but it's insane. People who want to work, who want to do it the right way, and have companies willing to sponsor them still sometimes have to wait years to do it. Years. If your family was going to suffer for years, wouldn't you just jump a fence and work to send money back home rather than go through the official channels?
"The best way to deal with illegal immigration is to make the legal immigration process easier."
Not necessarily. Because you might want a legal immigration system that requires immigrants to be able to show that they bring economic benefits to the country. And you might have rules about who could cross, and from which countries, and whether they have a criminal record, etc. That would do nothing, really, to stop the people crossing the border. Legal immigrants are a different pool of potential immigrants, in other words.
I don't agree with your characterization of the economics of immigration. The unemployment rate in Mexico, for example, is 3.2%. Average income is 17k USD, and the cost of living in Mexico is 45.7% lower than in the U.S. So there are jobs and wages that will sustain you.
You're cherry picking some data there. 35% of Mexico is in poverty, and that's actually the best it's been in decades (partially because the poorest come to the US and send money home). Many of the illegal immigrants came to the US when rates were over 50%, just four years ago. The average household income is 17k. The average household income in the US is $75k. Even when you adjust for cost of living, you can see the numbers are extremely bad for Mexico.
Mexicans also work the second most hours per week of the OECD members. Put simply, working in Mexico is harder, less productive, and less successful than working in the US.
I was citing the median salary. "The average salary in Mexico is around $350,000 pesos yearly. When converted to USD, this is around $17,000 USD yearly."
Either way, it's simply not true that one can't survive in Mexico, that it's economy is so bad that people are forced to flee. No doubt the economy of the U.S. is better. No denying that. But no denying this either: Mexico hunger statistics for 2022 was 0.00%.
Not sure where you're getting your data, but the food insecurity situation in Mexico is pretty bad. People don't starve, but they live unsure of where their next meal will come from. Likewise, increases in food security are a direct result of the illegal immigration we're talking about. Imagine all the illegal immigrants go back to Mexico tomorrow. Don't you think that would be a huge burden on an already shaky system?
As for the numbers you keep quoting, I already gave you the poverty rate. Everything else is unimportant minutiae. Just because you think it's enough money doesn't mean it is, clearly. Or else the poverty rate would not be what it is.
You said median, but then you said average. Those are two different things.
At least we can agree that these are not refugees or asylum seekers but economic migrants looking to make more money by coming to America.
That's a useful distinction.
But it raises several questions: Is it in our national interest to let in anyone from any country that has an economy we deem weak? Should that be the basis of our immigration law? Do the immigrants need to show that they personally are in the poverty range in their country? Do immigrants from countries not on our border receive the same privilege? Should we, in other words, be required to accept everyone who wants to come here from every country that has an economy as weak as or weaker than Mexico?
I'm sympathetic to people who want to be richer than they are at home. I'm also aware of problems like lifeboat ethics and the tragedy of the commons, etc.
(About my switching from median to average: One source says "The median salary in Mexico is 29,200 MXN (USD 1,695/month)" and one says "The average salary in Mexico is around $350,000 pesos yearly. When converted to USD, this is around $17,000 USD yearly.")
Many of them are refugees and asylum seekers. There is more than one type of immigrant. Of course there are questions that we need to ask ourselves, but one thing is clear: the current system doesn't work.
The other important factor that's never mentioned is business hiring practices. People would not come here if businesses did not hire them. Businesses hire them because they will work for cheap and in thankless jobs. I worked at a farm when I was younger, and literally every field worker was an immigrant. The job was posted, and in my 4 years there, only 1 American ever applied, and he quit in three or so weeks. I imagine it's similar in other farms around the country.
Truth be told, the US economy is reliant on immigration, and, unfortunately, reliant on cheap, undocumented labor. Now what do we do about that? I'm not entirely sure, but certainly, the worst possible option is to completely eliminate illegal immigration while doing nothing to boost legal immigration.
Because you might want a legal immigration system that requires immigrants to be able to show that they bring economic benefits to the country.
How is this quantified and measured ? (and over what time period ?.. First 1yr the person is inside the country ?.. 10years inside the country ?.. 50 years inside the country ?)
I've never really been comfortable with the idea that "you have to show you bring value to the country you're joining". Doesn't everyone potentially bring value ? (assuming we support them and give them the necessary infrastructure to succeed )
Someone could come in with a PHD, one might think that makes them a fairly easy approval. But they could be a rich property scam artist or unethical in some other way down the road.
Someone could come in who's just a manual labor worker,.. and over 5 or 10 or 20 years works their way up to owning a few restaurants and helping contribute to reviving the tourist economy in a small border town.
Measuring people by "what we (outwardly) believe they bring" is certainly one way to do it. Measuring people by "what future potential they have" also has value.
"How is this quantified and measured ?"
I suppose you could look at countries that do have such requirements.
"Doesn't everyone potentially bring value ?"
I read a study a few weeks ago that said the legal immigrants to the U.S. do bring a net value - and quite a lot - and that illegal immigrants cost a lot of money. So it seems like some come and are a drain on the system, and some come and contribute.
I don't think anyone could say that such a system of filtering who is allowed in and who isn't would be foolproof. It's like college admissions - someone with perfect grades in high school might fail out in college, and someone with terrible grades in high school might excel, but you can't let in literally everyone, so you use GPAs as a measure of the likelihood of student success.
I'm certainly no expert in immigration or college (having never gone to college myself)
"I read a study a few weeks ago that said the legal immigrants to the U.S. do bring a net value - and quite a lot - and that illegal immigrants cost a lot of money. So it seems like some come and are a drain on the system, and some come and contribute."
This is kind of the way I look at it,. that all the things you say there can be said about regular citizens. If we're going to be really selective or enforcing on immigration and mandating that "people contribute",.. I'd argue we should enforce those same standards on our own internal citizens.
I always try to avoid nitpicking imperfect metaphors, but with the college metaphor at least we (In general) give people a multitude of options. There are a variety of different levels of college. There's scholarships and other sorts of financial aid based on various criteria. if we built out that same infrastructure and (for lack of a better name) built something like a "Immigration Camp" that you had to live in for 2 years while you established your ID and learned basic English and if you didn't have a skill learned one. To me there's all sorts of potential there. We need various infrastructure around the country fixed ?.. send in the "immigration teams' ?.. A lot of existing citizens have this attitude of "illegal immigrants dont care about the country".. you could dispel that fairly quickly if they worked for 1 to 2 years helping fix infrastructure or doing other national improvement projects. (I'm sure the complainers would still find some way to complain even after this)
I get the argument of GPA's and other historical measurements have value,.. but kinda the whole entire underlying point of the USA is "someone's future potential" not their past. There's a reason why the light that burns brightly atop the Status of Liberty has a message that says:
""Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
And not just "Only come here if we approve of you".
I can't see deporting people born here for not contributing, but as immigration is a choice and not a birth right, it does seem like you can have some standards for whom you let in.
Also, I am actually one who doesn't really love the "message" on the Statue of Liberty, which was added something like 20 years after the statue went up. The original point of the statue was to celebrate liberty. That was a bit watered down by the Emma Lazarus poem added to a plaque there in 190s, which makes it seem like it was about immigration. I do value immigration, and I think when the plaque was added 120 years ago, we were a country that greatly benefitted from mass immigration. But like anything else, conditions change. A country that's basically empty becomes progressively more full, and it may not make sense to have an open door policy forever.
I can't see deporting people born here for not contributing, but as immigration is a choice and not a birth right, it does seem like you can have some standards for whom you let in.
I guess (my own personal ethics) I would want to "incentivize the behavior we want".. instead of trying to "punish the behavior we don't want". (not to say there's no punishments at all,. but that it shouldn't be the majority driver of the policy). Clearly people want to come here, if they're willing to risk their lives scrambling over 1000's of miles of hostile territory just for a chance.
"becomes progressively more full"
I'm not sure I'd agree that we are. Something like 80% of US population lives east of the Mississippi. Significant chunks of the western half of the US are pretty much empty. Cities like California City are basically sitting there empty (California City is 206 sq miles, by land use its the 3rd largest in California but mostly sits empty with a current population of only 15,000 people). Theres's over a dozen states with population density less than 50 people per square mile (Main, Oregon, Utah, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska). Not saying that's an argument to take "anyone and everyone",. but the problem really isn't "we're out of space". If there's any problem it's that we lack intelligent allocation of resources and things like the greed of the housing issue. I'm always kind of stunned when new buildings are built and why they're always so small and timid. (and so many buildings with so much wasted and unused roof space). We 100% have the technology to build large (mega?) apartment buildings to solve the housing problem,. it's just that nobody seems to be doing it. (everyone wants "easy profit",. not "solving the housing problem"). You can find elegant and expensive brand new apartment buildings, but they're all targeting at rich yuppies (expensive countertops, boutique amenities, etc) . Where are the mega-apartment buildings with bamboo counter tops and renewable hemp rugs and job-training classes in the basement next to the laundry and community kitchen ?..
All those problems are solvable,. we just have bass-ackwards priorities.
Trump proposed giving green cards to all college graduates here on student visas.
I just find the whole immigration debate hilarious because to me it’s the epitome of wasted energy. Not immigration itself, but the emotional arguments people engage in are so far removed from the actual policy discussions.
I bet North Korea has. 🤷🏻
Why do you limit the question to far right? How do you define far right? And immigration or illegal immigration?
North Korea
Physically it is very simple to do, you simply build border obstacles like walls, barbed wire or no man's land and man it with troops/police, you just have to WANT to do that... sure few sneaky people make it, but like dozens, not millions lol
Russia did it against nato for decades in countries like czechoslovakia, you would get shot, arrested if lucky or bitten in the ass by a Sheppard if you tried to leave, it really isn't hard.
North Korea does a "great" job of it in both directions
Japan did for hundreds of years
Immigration and ILLEGAL immigration are two completely different things.
THIS comment right here. 100%
No one intelligent wants to stop immigration.
However there is an enormous difference between controlled and uncontrolled immigration.
They are NOT the same.
And what we have now is uncontrolled immigration.
Lol no, their real masters want the cheap labor and they have to keep up their fear tactics. It's all theater. You never see any of these right wing governments actually go after the business that hire undocumented workers.
THIS.
If governments actually wanted to curb illegal immigration, they’d throw the people hiring them in jail, and the illegal immigrants would stop coming as the demand for them dried up.
I think governments are just trying to stop ILLEGAL immigration. There’s a huge difference.
During ww2 we turned Jews away.
I mean.. it worked for Germany for about 10 years or more
I’d argue no one immigrating to Iran of Afghanistan (at least to my knowledge).
Switzerland has a strict immigration policy
A lot of countries now and historically have almost no immigration. Right wing really has nothing to do with it.
Hungary is doing pretty well, despite pressures from the EU.
It’s doing pretty well at restricting immigration, yes. It’s not generally doing pretty well.
From my understanding a right government doesn't want to stop immigration but it wants to stop illegal immigration.
Counties do profit when the smarts people from other counties migrate
A right wing might, but a far right government wants to stop all immigration. The far right typically dislikes multiculturalism and prefers a homogenous society.
It depends on how you define terms ... several have reduced it or stopped it for a time. And usually, they just want to reduce 'unwanted' immigration. I don't think that many people immigrated into Nazi Germany, for example ...
North Korea?
North Korea?
I don't think anyone was immigrating to Germany during WW2.
Anyone who ends up immigrating to North Korea today didn't intend to stay that long.
yes, Hungary
I think Nazi Germany may have succeeded in this...
U.S S.R, most of Eastern Europe post ww2. China since the 50's. Cuba, Australia.
I mean technically north Korea did or eritrea
The US banned immigration from certian countrkes where they were militairily active. This works better whith an ocean in between them and those countries. I'd say the ICE agency def stopped some immigration but especially integration I'd say.
They don't need to because they're held to a different standard
Sure -- Denmark.
US cut it back in 1924
The question is stopped though.
Yes. Japan and South Korea are pretty conservative. They dont have the problem that when you oppose to mass immigration you are called racist. Guess what they are doing well, the people are disciplined and their culture is intact. They are a unite country with no high crime rates.
Instead if you go to Berlin, to London, or tp Paris, it seems to be in Africa. If you want to know muslim """"culture"""" go to Africa. Should not be in Europe. Mass immigration has damaged Europe, destroying identity, creating conflics and violence.
Maynmar
Also North Korea but not sure if anyone consider them right.
Nazi Germany.
East Germany after the war. Don't think too many people were trying to get in.
"Far right" not commmunist.
It was called "vertragsarbeiter" and as far as i know the DDR had quite a few. Mostly out of other Eastern Block states like cuba and i guess some vietnamese people too.
Nvm i googled it and i told bullshit. That was more of a work visa. 🤷♂️
I think a better question is "has any far right government not been a huge disaster for their country?".
When you look at the state of countries where fascism has taken over, they usually regret it a whole lot. Spain had to fight a civil war to get rid of Franco. Mussolini was deposed by force and assassinated. Hitler started a war that destroyed his own country and half of Europe.
Even on a smaller scale, Trump turned America into a laughing stock, emboldened Putin, fucked America's response to COVID and got himself and a bunch of his supporters arrested for a variety of crimes. Boris Johnson's conservatives in the UK are on the verge off being electorally wiped out having effectively broken the economy and government of a whole country.
The hard right does nothing but destroy their host. They don't sometimes destroy their host and sometimes result in great success. They only destroy their host.
Eum, Spain didn't fight a civil war to get rid of Franco. The fascists won a civil war when Franco took power but after his dead, the transition back to democracy was mostly peaceful.
Yes, sorry, my mistake, you're right. I misremembered. Nevertheless, he was an authoritarian dictator who killed ass-loads of Spanish people.
El Salvador
No offence to the people of El Salvador, but it's a bit of a crazy basket case. Its social and economic situation is so weird compared to most countries that it's hard to compare it to a typical political system. Didn't they declare bitcoin to be a national currency at one point?
I mean that’s not the point, the point is it’s working for that country
And the Soviet Union was a raging success?
What is the point that you think you're making? Fascism has been a success because the Soviet Union was not a success? Can you explain the logic behind your statement?
Their point is that extremism is bad.
The Soviet Union was every bit as bad, if not worse than the Fascists of the 1930's and 40's. Communism killed millions in Ukraine and Russia and Vlad would like to bring it back.
The point which you fail to grasp is that the right wing and the left, has perpetrated its share of evil...
Yes, but this isn't a thread about comparing communism to fascism, so why introduce this line of discussion? Nobody's suggesting communism here.
It wasn't a thread about the success of far right governments either. If you take detours from the topic, you can't gate keep it after the fact, it becomes open discourse.
You didn't even make an attempt to answer the OP.
Wasn’t the Soviet Union extremely authoritarian?
Yes, and as communists, left wing...
Both Lenin and Stalin were real sweethearts...
Probably should edit this part:
"The hard right does nothing but destroy their host. They don't sometimes destroy their host and sometimes result in great success. They only destroy their host."
Its a bit odd.
Thank you for your copy editing, but I think it makes the point that I intended it to make.
I understood what you wrote just fine.
My apologies, I am so tired that it seemed off to me. I get what you mean now.
Completely agree with you that the hard right leads to terror, but let’s not act like the hard left doesn’t do the exact same thing. Communism (hurr durr real communism hasn’t been tried) has killed way way WAY more people than any other form of government.
Nobody mentioned the hard left. There is no hard left resurgence in Western politics. They're not relevant. The only danger right now is the hard right.
If you're politically illiterate just don't comment. It's less headache for everyone.
You’re not getting the answer you’re looking for because your premise is flawed. The issue is not immigration, it’s illegal immigration and they’re not the same thing. It’s a bipartisan issue and not a “far right” thing
Far right like neocons and zionists? i dont know who you mean.
User deleted comment
1d
Reform UK, a far right party doing well in the polls, have 'freeze immigration' as part of their policy. OPs question is a valid curiosity.
Why do you add "far right"? What is "far right" versus "right"? My suspicion is that you have not the slightest clue.
Well, after looking over the comments I’ll be blunt.
No. No one has stopped immigration completely. Left or Right. And anyone that may seem to do so is only temporary.
There are multitudes of ethnic flavors across the globe, and the biological goal of any organism is superior specimen homogenization.
Governments with restrictive borders are therefore, on a biological level, directly opposed to the natural order. On a lot of other things too.
Not Billy Bob’s natural order where he’s only interested in shapely relatives. They think the actual balance of nature is “hocus pocus science.”
Nazis
I imagine North Korea has done a pretty good job.
China
1930s Germany was infamously successful at this.
No one tries to stop it. They try to reduce it. You cant stop immigration.
Didn’t Germany WW2 stop immigration? North Korea doesn’t really have any immigration.
Idk. But a whole bunch of far left countries have ended immigration.
Legal or illegal?
Yes, by making their home nations undesirable places to live. They become net emigration countries.
Japan has a far right government. It has basically very low immigration nowadays.
Saudi Arabla.
Using countries where immigration is less desirable would be cause for a lower immigration rate. Cuba and North Korea shouldn't be surprising.
The countries with the strictest immigration would include
- Vatican
- North Korea
- Liechtenstein
- Kuwait
“Far right” so like North Korea? Maybe that’s a start but that’s my guess.
I doubt Nazi Germany had much immigration. Lots tried emigration
No, and America's won't either, because everything they're doing is in service to capital and capitalists love immigration because it's cheaper labor to exploit.
North Korea. They arrest immigrants when they catch them.
Far right would be authoritarian / dictatorships.
Immigration is a governmental process for allowing someone to settle into their country. I wouldn't say live, because if they take someone and throw them in jail they're still alive. By that, no country stops immigration because all of them have some sort of system in place to allow someone to come in - even if it's the approval by the dictator. North Korea has the strictest borders I'm aware of, though if Dennis Rodman wanted to settle there he'd probably be allowed to, though it might be an official gov't residence under close watch and for a hefty fee.
The right: Don't let your country?! Get out!
Also the right: Immigration is bad, you have to stay in the country you were born in
Disregarding far right for a second, there are plenty of countries around the world where the annual immigration rates are extremely small.
Japan and S. Korea are two quite famous examples of developed countries that have extremely restrictive immigration policies compared to most European countries + USA & Canada.
Sidenote, Cuba and N. Korea are not far right by any means but their immigration is as close to 0 as it can get.