Which itself happened due to a democratic deficit regarding migration.

All cause mortality is correlational for vitamin D. Various disease outbreaks (common cold, etc) and severity are correlational for vitamin D. etc We even know by which mechanisms so it's not like this is far fetched stuff where we're overlooking things.

This kind of stuff slaps you in the face if you live in the northern half of europe. To then think us now spending the majority of our waking hours indoors and the prevalence of those things and seasonal depression in winter when one leaves in the dark and comes home in the dark all has no effect....I think that's just hubris.

To be fair they had been in the empire for a good amount of years at that time if i remember well. ...so when comparing to other previous influxes that did get integrated and/or assimilated it does seem apt.

That 20 is in large part the kid that was brought into the hospital too late if at all. The kid that might have had astma or what have you.

The 3 is potentially yours or one in your family or friend group or community. It is a government mandated death and you might already distrust the gov.

A tragic event vs an authoritarian death inflicted upon you from that perspective.

My grandma is a scientist presumably very familiar with all this stuff but when her partner (not my grandpa) died from a bloodcloth shortly after getting an vaccine she also veered into that territory.

Some of the migrants I found most eager to integrate were all americans. They did so in a short time too. Some of the most succesfull whilst also being visually and culturally distinct were (south) east asians who form a small spread out subsection of migrants.

>Your government does not know how to integrate foreigners.

It doesn't try to. Everything but. Hell we have major leftists parties advertising in arab and turkish. They also have a revolving door of scandals where they find out one of their migrant politicians has extremely problematic viewpoints. Hell we have some that left to join foreign politics after doing their vote gathering job for erdogan or the like here.

Some decade or 2 ago the prominent promise was that migrants would assimilate. To say they would not was labled biggoted. After all smaller italian migration had mostly done so. Now the progressive script on this matter has switched around completely and the expectation of assimilation is considered biggoted.

I think that says something about those progresives in question.

> In contrast, America's relatively liberalized immigration policy means we're taking in migrants from all walks of life.

It selects for richer migrants among other things even just by virtue of having a rather big pond to cross and an airport that doesn't let one sidestep the migration selection system to get trough.

On a sidenote I remember a similar discussion with a canadian stating they also had a ton of moroccan migrants around the same time and those have done very well. Somehow managing to not take note of the fact that the vast majority of their moroccan diaspora is somehow part of that small subsection of morocco that was jewish.

>America used to have an extremely racist and restrictive immigration policy. This was only undone about 50 years ago.

It also assimilated well since it had a strong focus on it's big cultural sphere, a lot of nationalism and considered being a hyphenated american to be something non aspirational and even derogatory.

Belgium doesn't have a big cultural sphere, it's the least nationalist country you can potentially think of so there's no way to cloak oneself in that way and many consider themselves [insert other nationality] or muslim first and belgian/flemish second.

>The immigration policy most countries in Europe has is tailored specifically for bringing in temporary workers that can be dismissed as will[2].

Them being guest workers was an initial excuse to make it palpatable to the populace when they were brought in to lower wages, take shit working conditions and combat unionization. In reality there's no dismissing at wil. There's no framework that sends them back.

>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.

What racist policies and what nadir of american race relations? If I think nadir of american race relations i think red summer or LA riots. Never of anything involving italians or irish. From what I remember learning the supposed differing perception of the irish and italians in the US has been massively inflated/overstate in recent decades since it fits a certain perspective. They're also not exactly that easy to discern from other groups. They're white and the perception that they were a different "race" was extremely fringe even if one likes to put the exceptions to that in the spotlight today and rather different than the differentiation from WASP in-group stuff.

A similarly weird retroactive progressive view is the noble savage stuff regarding native americans. A tribe that genocided another and has inhabbited a state far less continuously than let's say flemish in belgium gets uplifted by what is pretty much blood and soil rethoric of cultural and historic ties to the land and nature.

>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.

In the US increasingly this kind of super large differentiated diaspora doesn't quite exist to the same extent except maybe for "african americans" as a wider group. Even chinese americans are only about 6mil if i remember well. You have places where ethnicities are very much concentrated and you see similar things happening but they're a tiny part of the country as a whole.

>As a European you are probably arguing that America does not have cities because of our comically awful public transportation networks.

I can't see why that would be and have never met a european that thought that.

>In case this isn't obvious: the Muslims taking over your country are just as worried about western culture taking over theirs.

yes americanisation/westernisation happens there as much as here. But I dare say there is a key difference in that there are no westerners moving to their countries en mass and going as far as excluding locals from housing and jobs in local administrations they take over with sectarian voting. I would bet money if that was the case it would fairly commonly be equated to or flat out called colonialism.

There's far less sub saharan africans who settle in morocco on the other hand and they do make it a political issue. Similarly the racism of my saudi ex's family (in SA to be clear) would make our far right blush and similar can be said about the takes of some turkish friends about syrians, armenians, etc whilst they're otherwise ironically very pro migration and either progresive or ...progressive anti-religious ultranationalist.

Funilly enough outside of those ethnicities they had conflicts with I've found Turkish inclusive ultranationalism to have been similarly effictive as the american flavour of the past. I know second generation people there of ethnicities from russia, central asia and the middle east who see themselves very very much as Turks.

In typical western european fashion I used to be very opposed to nationalism in this way and other ways but this and other experiences have kind of flipped my script.

PS: At the end of the day if non eu migrants are on average a net financial drain to a densely populated country then most argumets for it still just fall apart. Any argument that does push some perceived benefit seems to shatter on the fact that it depends on a system of eternal migration and population growth. The kind of stuff that would end up vindicating the replacement conspiracy theories.

It is possible to prove a company is disproportionally one or the other when making the claim. Of course when an industry has far less applicants or members of a certain group that's to be expected but still. Consequentially I've heard of some pretty blatant race based selection especially in the US. It's just that that selection ends up excluding white people (or east asians) A while ago I even discussed with a hr person here on hn who was defending their hiring of that sort with the most flowery wording about 'just giving priority' or 'reaching out to members of their prefered group specifically' fist if all they get is not the desired group.

I think like with that person that found their cancer to have some dna from an mrna vaccine in it the issue is when the prominent messaging is that there is no 0.1 micromort risk. There is no risk whatsoever and everyone who says so is a looney. Immediately you'll have thousands who say i told you so and harden their conviction.

Do you keep it warm? These things were often built with a fireplace inside.

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.

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.

The irony comment comes across somewhat innefective and petulant when I and others i've encountered with such views hold them in spite of the effects it could have for us. I don't see the point in laughing at that any more than i see it in calling out irony when a rich person calls for tax hoops to be closed and taxation to be fair.

The total was the majority of the population and yes it wasn't a purely christian nation. https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e... You can similarly describe various countries as multifaith but in practice it happens rarely. Very few people descibe israel as such for example.

At the end of the day if hezbollah is vanquished and for that the frontier is shifted why is the expectation not that a new one in kind props up outside of this new frontier?

Everywhere here rent has rapidly outpaced the mortgage payments and the down payment also pushed down my monthly payments significantly so it's not like nothing comes out of that.

To top it off my home is far more spacious.

Maybe it could work out if you went for the cheapest rent and invested the difference and happened to be that rare case that avoids a market crash. But then you'd also be living in a small appartment for at least 2 decades.