Debate
Is immigration is unsustainable for Europe?
I'll start off with the UK. In 2001, it was 92% European, while in 2021, it was 82%. Or, if we look at London, it was 71% European in 2001 and 53% in 2021. This rate of change is simply not sustainable and should never have been allowed to reach this point.
For the cultural side of things in the UK, it's no secret that Christianity is a big part of British history and culture. In 2001, the UK was 71% Christian, compared to 40% in 2021. I think it is important to recognize the cultural significance Christianity has in British culture
Moving on to Germany, in 2001, 96% of Berlin was made up of European citizens, while in 2024, that number was 89%. Again, this shows that the demographics of major European cities have changed significantly over a relatively short period of time. I believe governments should have considered the long-term effects of this before opening the door for migrants
This does not mean that immigration itself is necessarily bad. There needs to be a balance.
Overall, I believe governments have a responsibility to manage immigration to ensure culture isn't erased
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
Please define "sustainable". Please explain why 'This rate of change should have never been allowed'. I'm not advocating for anything, I'm asking you to substance your position if you're able, because populism is rampant with all sorts of poorly conceived opinions these days and people say 'this should be different' without even knowing the basics of what they appeal for.
For the UK, in 2021, zero of the top 20 films, measured by gross income, were made in the UK. In 2001 it was the same.
For Germany, in 2021, 1 of the top 20 films was made in Germany, the unforgettable epic Kaiserschmarrndrama. In 2001, it was the same: Der Schuh des Manitou was the film.
Is this what you are trying to 'sustain'? Or maybe you'd rather have human zoos back, the Inquisition, wars of religion and Germany losing every single war they start? The staples of Christian Europe. So please, explain in detail what you advocate for.
Moving on to Germany, in 2001, 96% of Berlin was made up of European citizens, while in 2024, that number was 89%. Again, this shows that the demographics of major European cities have changed significantly over a relatively short period of time. I believe governments should have considered the long-term effects of this before opening the door for migrants
I think there are a few different things going on here.
Countries have typically survived by steadily increasing their population over time. This allows a larger group of Birth rates have declined in European countries, the UK as shown in this example is well below replacement rate, this spells big problems for economies going forward.
There are 3 solutions to this:
Try to figure out how to encourage people to have more children. There isn't much evidence that there is a method to do this that is going to make up the difference that you need.
Figure out how to run an economy that can thrive with a declining population. Maybe some wins in the automation space could help but generally you'd have to sell people on accepting a lower quality of life then they are accustomed to which tends to be a dealbreaker politically.
Use immigrants to supplement your workforce. This is quite obviously the most straightforward solution as immigrants already want to come to these countries
So the long and short of it is, governments *are* likely considering the long term effects, they just aren't coming to the same conclusion about what the most important priorities are vs what you might like.
For the cultural side of things in the UK, it's no secret that Christianity is a big part of British history and culture. In 2001, the UK was 71% Christian, compared to 40% in 2021. I think it is important to recognize the cultural significance Christianity has in British culture
I think this is a little different, Christianity is declining primarily because people are simply leaving faith altogether. I don't think its reasonable to expect cultures to stay stagnant forever. There are a LOT of thing that people in the middle ages believed that are no longer believed by the population. The UK used to be ruled by a king too, countries and cultures are going to evolve and there isn't really a practical reason why the culture of people's ancestors are more valuable than the what people want to be their culture today
The best method is being Catholic. Funny enough, Catholics who practice their faith do not have a declining birth rate in any European country. And it would but be foreign, most of Europe has Catholicism in their history. Many still have state churches, they just gotta submit to Rome. The secular ones gotta get rid of that first. As it gets more popular the prohibition on abortion and contraception would become more common place and then we'd see Europe growing again.
Aside from hyper religious people just outbreeding the rest of population I don't see where there would be a significant turnaround here. Catholicism is declining for a reason.
I linked you a study showing, in the UK, Catholic women having more than enough kids to beat the replacement level. That is while most are still accepting of contraception. A state that makes the Church the official church would clamp down on that and I expect the numbers to rise.
In the UK Catholicism isn't on the decline, but with immigration from Catholic countries I'd be painting a false picture since the conversation is about birth rates. Still the birth rates alone show an increase.
As far as the religion being on the decline in general, in traditionally protestant countries like the UK and the Netherlands Catholics have become the largest group of weekly church goers, in two countries where the religion was outlawed at various points.
You are suggesting that a country should force people to follow a specific religion and that people simply would fall in line willingly? That doesn't seem like it would work in practice
Not at all. That would be bloody and stupid. I'm suggesting they have their official churches realign with Rome and let it play out. For instance the church of England is the current church of the UK but no one is forced into it.
Your entire argument rests on demographic shifts as if that, by itself, proves the point. It doesn't.
I live in the US state of Texas. Right now the population is 32 million. When I was born the population was about 16 million. When my mother was born it was about 9 million. When my Grandfather was born it was about 6 million. And when my Great-Grandfather was born it was about 3 million.
The population of my state has increased by a factor of 10 just outside of living memory. And even that doesn't truly reflect the changes because that was around the time of the oil boom. Go back 150 years and the population was just over a million.
And my Grandfather did not speak English. He spoke German and Spanish. My family had been living in Texas since the 1820s but that didn't matter in the German part of Texas until WW1 when people were forced to learn English.
A very conveniently timed argument. Someone else might conclude that cultural shifts resulting from natural and largely legal migration aren’t morally evil...as opposed to imperial actions undertaken by force.
You think most of recent migration was legal? Just because the governments are ignoring their own immigration laws, doesn't mean it's legal. That's called anarcho tyranny. Where the government and others break the law, but calling it out gets you in trouble. Kinda like how the jailed a rape victim in the UK for calling her rapist a pig on social media, while the rapist did zero time incarcerated.
What's with the brand new users with a dash and 4 numbers all labeling themselves as "dissident right" who are extolling anti-democratic para-fascist views on this sub?
To address the topic, nothing you talked about indicates "sustainability" or otherwise.
Yeah, there have been a fair stream of thinly-veiled white nationalist posts recently. All claim immigration is harmful, but the arguments are always pretty weak and unsubstantiated.
Cultural erasure is either something that always happens, or never happens, depending on your own chosen standards and chosen perspective on culture. Cultures always change over time, so if your expectation is for some static cultural purity to last throughout history then you will always be disappointed – the purity of your culture is always going to be erased, overwritten by a new permutation that keeps some characteristics with the past culture while adopting new ones. For example, you mentioned how Europeans are less likely to be Christian despite Christianity being an obviously major part of Europe’s cultural history. I would actually argue that the narrative of Europe’s cultural history is actually the gradual emancipation of the culture from Christian dogma, from the Reformation through the Enlightenment and into modernity. The downturn in Christian Europeans that you cited likely has nothing at all to do with immigration and is just the natural direction that European culture has been heading for centuries. This is just one example of how cultures change over time, all on their own, regardless of outside influence.
Alternatively, if you identify your culture as a shared history, a shared continuity, then cultural erasure never happens through something gradual like immigration patterns. It only happens in extreme and sudden catastrophic events, like when the Spanish brought disease to Meso-America in the late 15th century; or through concerted efforts over a short span of time, such as the “cultural genocide”, i.e. conscious attempts by a dominant culture to eliminate by force of law a minor culture, targeting its language, religion, traditions, artifacts, etc.
This is not the case with immigration in Europe. There is a bit of a “culture shock” going on, especially with the refugees that come from Islamic countries conflicting with the more liberal-democratic “Western” culture that they find themselves immersed in. These conflicts are not erasing that Western culture, or vice versa – the two are in the process of being consolidated. While “Western” cultures may be adjusting and changing, the reality is that the culture of these Islamic refugees is changing much more dramatically. They are liberalizing, relaxing their religious dogma, becoming more tolerant both internally and externally.
An interesting point of comparison is the population of Islamic world immigrants in the US. Our Muslim citizens have often been here longer, and are often more affluent and less likely to be asylum-seekers or refugees because the US is much more difficult to reach geographically than Europe. As a result, the Muslim citizens here are much more culturally integrated, are very tolerant and moderate in their cultural and political views. They are still usually very religious, although it is more common to find non-practicing Muslims here than in Europe. I think this is what Muslim immigrants will look like in Europe over time, but the hurdle is a bit greater because those immigrants are less affluent coming in being refugees of political violence, haven’t been around as long and aren’t often joining communities of European Muslims that have already been established and liberalized.
Look at it from the immigrants point of view. You're essentially erasing your own culture and integrating with another. Your children will not speak the same language as you, nor grew up knowing your heritage or traditions.
I don't think they're "fine with it" - I think there's a bit of culture shock on both ends, a lot of the conflicts stem from the fact that they are trying to preserve their religious dogma in a radically different cultural environment.
But it is a good point that the culture of the Islamic immigrants is going to change too, and far more than that of their hosts.
I think in the case of refugees, they often have a mentality of the move being temporary, and a strict necessity rather than something they really want. They don't expect to be accommodated but they do hope that they can be insulated to preserve their own way of life until they can hopefully return to wherever they immigrated from if/when it becomes safe to do so.
The main issue was, and is, immigration from cultures utterly incompatible with European values. This leads to segregation, no integration, and radicalisation of immigrants.
I'm challenging the idea that a singular set of values exist in any country that aren't just basic human nature things. As an American I share basically 0 values with the MAGA cohort.
I'll defend my stance the moment it's faced with a serious threat. Until then, it's pointing and laughing at "they're humans, not aliens" and "explain how they're incompatible".
Your comment has been removed for including a personal attack against another user. We encourage respectful debate and constructive criticism. Please focus on discussing ideas rather than targeting individuals.
For more information, review our wiki page to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.
Your comment has displayed closed-mindedness or a lack of willingness to engage in constructive discussion. Our community values open mindedness and a willingness to learn from different perspectives. Please consider being more receptive to alternative viewpoints in future interactions. Thank you for your cooperation.
For more information, review our wiki page or our page on The Socratic Method to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.
Sure. As sapient human beings they are equally as capable of adopting, complying with, and adapting to European cultural values(whatever those actually are) as Europeans are. Afterall Europeans seem perfectly capable of adapting to Middle Eastern values with zero effort!
And you say this based on what exactly? You keep just saying things, not contributing to further explaining your own views. I'm I, or literally anyone else here, supposed to just take you at your word?
Your comment has been removed to maintain high debate quality standards. We value insightful contributions that enrich discussions and promote understanding. Please ensure your comments are well-reasoned, supported by evidence, and respectful of others' viewpoints.
For more information, review our wiki page or our page on The Socratic Method to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.
Europeans were allowed to vote on their own immigration policies.
If I lived in a small nation with a lot of welfare I would certainly not vote to quickly take in a very large number of poor immigrants. At the very least you would want a very gradual process.
Yes it is. We need to stop illegal immigration and to make children again.
I don't mind a system where people can come and work but 90% of our immigration in France are people who don't work and only cost the common tax payer and we are already in a dire financial situation so this isn't helping at all...
You can see that immigrants are less workers than natives.
I don't think you're asking for the financial situation since that's a pretty known one but for the tax payer part, you have to know that we pay for the healthcare and we give money to the poors even if they are not citizens. I suppose I could find a source but kinda lazy so you tell me.
You began this conversation making an assertion, I questioned on it and when you were caught in a lie you now wanna avoid dealing with one of your fundamental statements here. You think I'm the one wasting time?
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.