Sounds absolutely necessary and maybe well over a decade overdue. If we had had this all the way back when the boats started arriving in Italy and Greece and when Merkel and the Scandinavian nations opened their doors...and the whole of Europe's...we wouldn't have had this huge huge shift right we've seen.
Exactly. If they’d started assisting building infrastructure and creating food security in the countries people were migrating from, imagine where we’d all be today. Instead China is handing out loans and detention centres are being built.
The French government was very happy to help bomb Libya until it became an open-air slave market. If they didn't want to deal with Libyan refugees, maybe they shouldn't have caused the refugee crisis in the first place
What Libyan refugees? The issue is people from other African countries crossing through Libya to get to Italy and claim they're Syrian/Afghan, wasting 5 years of taxpayer money to prove they're not and then figure out what to do with them once it's clear they have no legal right to be in the EU.
Libyan refugees were barely a thing. What happened is that people from various African countries (most of these not running from war) used the chaos in Libya to be smuggled to Europe.
That's the US. Their administration says stuff like "Europe is ruined due to uncontrolled migration" while at the same time being (one of the) reasons for it.
We absolutely would have a shift to the right, even with less immigration. People have to remember that far right talking points aren't based in real world problems and facts the vast majority of the time. Sometimes there is some truth or an actual core issue, but that's not what far right politicians are trying to solve. Their ideology is based on emotional manipulation and spread by extremely wealthy and influential organizations and individuals for their own goals. Even if we reached the goal of 0 illegal migrants in Europe, they'd find another way to push the same overblown, propagandistic narratives about the migration topic. After all, among others, their platforms are made for racists and xenophobes.
>Their ideology is based on emotional manipulation and spread by extremely wealthy and influential organizations and individuals for their own goals.
You don't actually think that is only how the right operates do you?
Both left and right, as well as liberal and authoritarian, have a small cadre of intellectuals and a large swarm of people who use emotional PR campaigns to get the actual numbers needed to win elections mobilized.
No, a lot of politicians operate like that. But in the modern western far right circles (whose talking points are now propagated throughout the political spectrum) this is the primary way of operating. Populism, emotional manipulation, exacerbation of barely relevant issues and propaganda, without ever trying to solve relevant problems. If you think every polical option operates like that and to that degree, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Take a good look in the mirror at your own political representatives and the media surrounding them. I'll go with the most obvious one.
Remember when Trump wanted to build a wall? It wasn't attacked as a dumb idea, it was attacked as "cruel"... but how could it be cruel? A wall can't hurt anyone IF it worked at all (which I doubt given the existence of rope) it could only deter people who are 100% entering the country illegally.
But the PR and emotional campaigns spun up that it was cruelty, children would die.
And so, wolf was cried and now that there are actual concentration camps most people are apathetic.
But "This is just a fiscally dumb decision and won't solve anything" wouldn't have motivated the base to get out and vote, so they went with "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
> The European Parliament approved on Thursday a law aimed at speeding up the return of irregular migrants in larger numbers by building deportation centres outside the EU
Building centres outside the EU....? How does that work exactly? The europeans make buildings in turkey to hold afghan nationals?
Yes. They make agreements with certain countries to build these centres there and house these migrants there.
It it mostly aimed at relocating people that will not even qualify for asylum but dont want to go back either. They will now be housed outside the EU so they cannot walk around and make trouble while abusing the system setup to help people in actual need.
Thr added benefit will be, the cost to house then will also be reduced.
Typical wussy European solution of see no evil, therefore no evil. They only "make trouble" in the EU because the EU's political system permits this.
Same reason immigrants supposedly take excess welfare in the EU. What a dumb problem to have; if you don't like that, don't give them welfare!
We tend to think everyone is entiteled to a minimum if they are here to stay. During their asylum process they dont get that. We also know repression simply does not work, it just hardenes everyone/thing. So the next step is removing the incentive.
Calling that wussy and dumb is a choice.
> We tend to think everyone is entiteled to a minimum if they are here to stay
I agree. I think this is a dumb ethical system - you can ignore their plight when not in you country but you feel compelled to aid them in your country. So to deal with "feeling bad" about neglecting them you place them in third countries
1st it is not ignored, that seems to be projection on your part. After gutting USAID and destroying rather than giving out food help ready to go, that does not seem to be an agruement an american could or should make either.
2nd, relative poverty exists. So once you get to stay and are granted asylum you are provided with a minimum. It avoids/reduces things like homelessness and a turn to crime.
> After gutting USAID and destroying rather than giving out food help ready to go, that does not seem to be an agruement an american could or should make either.
I'm arguing we're more consistent. We also aggressively restrict welfare internally.
> 2nd, relative poverty exists
I find Europeans tend to exaggerate the relative over the absolute. Problem with a system like this is that obviously the immigrants find it a huge upgrade which is why they are so attracted to immigrating.
> It avoids/reduces things like homelessness and a turn to crime.
In America, our immigrants are less criminal than the natives; in Europe, more. Giving less benefits helps with self deportation and leaves the more skilled in the country
Consistancy.. in the US. LOL. Everything in the US is aimed at letting little dictators do as they please in the name of freedom. You now even have a mad king that is inconsistent within a single scentence.
The fact that you apparently argue that making more people worse off / suffer is somehow better is ... a choice.
But in relation to relative and absolute, you are correct, we tend to see things within a context in which they exist.
And the criminality numbers on comparative migrant populations.. thats a bold claim you probably heard on fox news or from trump social, right? Just like the "no go" areas, and more. Here you see the right wing pulling the uno reverse card and screetch about the "comparative or relative overrepresentation" of migrants in crime.. because in that case the absolute numbers tell the opposite story.
> The fact that you apparently argue that making more people worse off / suffer is somehow better is ... a choice.
That's the EU's position. As long as it is out of sight!
> But in relation to relative and absolute, you are correct, we tend to see things within a context in which they exist.
Yes, at the cost of growth. Anyone with ambition moves to America for this reason
> And the criminality numbers on comparative migrant populations.. thats a bold claim you probably heard on fox news or from trump social, right?
No it's actually the truth.
Obviously not from Trump who falsely claims our immigrants are criminal. That's simply not true; it's only true in the eu
You argued "at least were more consistent" when it came to also not helping people in your country and gutting USAID.
And at the cost of growth.. what growth? ShArEhOlDeR vAlUe? The US has seen tremendous economic growth.. and how much better off is the median american? How much better off are the bottom 80pct or even 95 pct? They're not. Real wages are stagnant, you are shedding real jobs, capital is fleeing, paying import taxes on all your stuff only to have it later be rebated to companies once declared illegal.. but sure.. growth.
Ah the "actual truth" arguement. Sure buddy. If you've got nothing, you can also just say "I feel it in my gut".
> and how much better off is the median american
Way better. Median income 30% higher than EU. Only Luxembourg beats the US.
> Real wages are stagnant
False
> you are shedding real jobs
Compared to the EU? Lol
> capital is fleeing
??? Have you compared the stock markets? Have you seen how much we're investing in AI data centers alone?
> paying import taxes on all your stuff
Yes Trump is an idiot. And even with that, USA is still winning hard
Comparing these 2 is impossible without normalizing for a lóóóót of things our taxes pay for. But sure, you go and compare net take home.
Real wages in the US are [stagnant](https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/) if not down. So no, most are provably not better off.
I was comparing the US to the US .. like in the [jobs report](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm). The US lost net 92k jobs AND within the labour market more employment moved from manufacturing to healthcare. Yelling whatabout is not helping amd just shows bad form and lack of substance.
You are not investing in datacenters. 7 big companies are fake investing virtual money they are passing IoU's [in q circle](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-ai-circular-deals/?leadSource=reddit_wall) into not yet existing datacenter using not yet existing cards, based on the hope that Ai will be profitable at some point. But at this point the businesscase is just not there. Meanwhile energy prices soar straining the Ai use case even more.
And is your argument "the DOW is over 50.000"? As it isnt anymore. Meanwhile interest the US pays in its debt is rising, while that of the EU falls. Dollar hegemony is corroding together with the legal framework in the US as corruption takes over.
I just dont get the american exceptionalism.. hollywood has sold everyone a lie and maga is just showing everyone the ugly truth. Things in europe are not ideal.. far from it, but we dont go around boasting how great we are. Many people around the world see no difference between the attacks by boko haram/isis/etc. Or the US around the world.. pause and think about that.
> But sure, you go and compare net take home.
For me as a software engineer? Way higher in America. Not even close. My post tax is higher than what I could get pre tax in the EU anywhere.
> Real wages in the US are stagnant if not down. So no, most are provably not better off.
Why are you linking me to ten year old data by a somewhat ideological think-tank like epi? Here's the bls data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
7% higher just relative to 2017.
> I was comparing the US to the US .. like in the jobs report. The US lost net 92k jobs
How's US to US the comparison to make? We're talking US to EU.
And a single month is not long term data.
> AND within the labour market more employment moved from manufacturing to healthcare.
That's not a bad thing
> into not yet existing datacenter using not yet existing cards, based on the hope that Ai will be profitable at some point. But at this point the businesscase is just not there.
Stereotypical European. Not only doesn't feel the AGI, but denies productivity boosts already there. (https://metr.org/blog/2026-02-24-uplift-update/).
The Europeans of course who do feel it (like Leopold Aschenbrenner) not surprisingly move to the US and make boatloads of $.
> And is your argument "the DOW is over 50.000"? As it isnt anymore.
Obviously I don't care about the dow. And yes, US markets have dominated EU over the last decade.
> Dollar hegemony is corroding together with the legal framework in the US as corruption takes over.
Oh no. The Euro is climbing in value.. back to where it was 5 years ago.
> Things in europe are not ideal.. far from it, but we dont go around boasting how great we are.
No but you guys love to talk about how bad things are in the States.. when they aren't.. probably to make yourselves feel better.
> Many people around the world see no difference between the attacks by boko haram/isis/etc. Or the US around the world.. pause and think about that.
I don't care what people outside the West think. No one immigrates to those countries because they suck
You have a high paying job and see everything though that lens. Won the birth lottery, and atill think you are self made. The whole "fuck you ive got mine" oozed out of your initial comment.
Capital accumulation works best in the US. Thats what it has been redesigned to be. Everything else, whatever.
Good luck in the rat race, hope nothing bad happens to you outside a fault of your own.. but then there is always 'go fund me' as a social safety net.
> Won the birth lottery, and atill think you are self made
Never claimed otherwise.
> Capital accumulation works best in the US. Thats what it has been redesigned to be
With lots of downstream positive effects!
"It it mostly aimed at relocating people that will not even qualify for asylum but dont want to go back either."
I don't think there is such thing. Often, they can't be returned because nobody knows where exactly they are form or what even their names are.
Hence, "The law enables EU countries to return irregular migrants to third countries unrelated to their origin, as long as they have bilateral agreements in place with a non-EU state to build centres called “return hubs” in its territory."
Yeah, if people dont qualify for asylum but refuse to work with the system to be returned now the host country is stuck with them. Especially young single men that dont qualify for asylum are an issue in the netherlands because they misbehave and cause problems.
These kinds of people will then be housed in 3rd countries so they dont make things worse here.
The issue will be what happens if they misbehave in the 3rd country. I can imagine the 3rd countries are more than willing to get money for housing people, but the moment they have to deal with the criminality they will not want to foot the bill for that, so european countries might then have to pay for their incarceration in the 3rd country.
And if that occurs, what happens if these people are mistreated there. For some that might be the allure of the system, while others see that as the primary issue. Its difficult.
>The issue will be what happens if they misbehave in the 3rd country. I can imagine the 3rd countries are more than willing to get money for housing people, but the moment they have to deal with the criminality they will not want to foot the bill for that, so european countries might then have to pay for their incarceration in the 3rd country.
Depending on which country it is, the crimes may be punished a lot harsher in a way that'll makes them less likely to offense. Not that I approve of it, but if you put the hubs in countries with death penalty for rape for example, then I'm pretty sure the troublemakers will be less likely to rape people... at least more than once.
Alternatively the hubs could be built in bumfuck nowhere so they have no place to go I guess. There's not that many disconnected remote locations in the EU sadly.
It'll deter some, more than the more lenient European ones. And It'll reduce repeat offenders by a lot.
Not that I would ever advocate for it as long as innocent people risk getting sentenced.
I can imagine at least one in the middle of the sahara. To house those extra special people that even manage to get themselves (r)ejected from the normal return hubs.
But then, france has some islands very far away, they could use for that and they also do not. So there must be a reason.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/the-secretive-libyan-prisons-that-keep-migrants-out-of-europe
An article from 2021. This has been a thing for a while now. Great read overall. New Yorker doesn't miss much when it comes to good writing
58 Comments
bluecheese2040@reddit
GreatestLoser@reddit
hannabarberaisawhore@reddit
neatdude73@reddit
AquelecaraDEpoa@reddit
MartinBP@reddit
historicusXIII@reddit
REKTGET3162@reddit
CluelessExxpat@reddit
weizikeng@reddit
NoThanksJefferson@reddit
BarneyShitmin@reddit
0rganic_Corn@reddit
Tarianor@reddit
bluecheese2040@reddit
Tarianor@reddit
TheBoizAreBackInTown@reddit
SamuelClemmens@reddit
TheBoizAreBackInTown@reddit
SamuelClemmens@reddit
neatdude73@reddit
Soepkip43@reddit
Muzi75@reddit
meister2983@reddit
Soepkip43@reddit
meister2983@reddit
Soepkip43@reddit
meister2983@reddit
Soepkip43@reddit
meister2983@reddit
Soepkip43@reddit
meister2983@reddit
Soepkip43@reddit
meister2983@reddit
Soepkip43@reddit
meister2983@reddit
CluelessExxpat@reddit
Soepkip43@reddit
Tarianor@reddit
Always-New831@reddit
poptix@reddit
Tarianor@reddit
Soepkip43@reddit
knakworst36@reddit
REKTGET3162@reddit
floralbutttrumpet@reddit
lolidkwtfrofl@reddit
MichelangeBro@reddit
Beliriel@reddit
lolidkwtfrofl@reddit
MissyLissa04@reddit
Chipsy_21@reddit
lolidkwtfrofl@reddit
imrzzz@reddit
Willybrown93@reddit
theoreoman@reddit
w1nter@reddit
Only_lurking_@reddit