Third World Immigration and its Effects on Western Societies - the great debate of our time

[NorseThing]

I agree with Dogukan that the problem isn't immigration itself, which I think is necessary and good when done correctly, but the system which allows hundreds of thousands of immigrants to come in very quickly without any sort of integration process. Immigration needs to be a gradual, sustainable process, because there are indeed different cultural values that do inevitably lead to clashes between immigrants and natives, which I think 'liberal' commentators tend to ignore. To remedy this culture clash, it's not only immigrants that need to do their part, but the natives and government too. It's often said that immigrants fail to integrate, but how are they supposed to integrate when there isn't really a system to help them do so? There should be significant outreach programmes that teach third-world immigrants the cultural values of their host country as well as making them feel welcome in the community. Absent such initiatives, it's hardly a surprise when immigrant 'enclaves' appear, especially if the natives are actively hostile to them. On the other hand, new immigrants who commit crimes should be deported. None of this standing up in a plane to prevent the deportation of an Afghan criminal stuff. If that gentleman was so fearful about returning to his home country he should've behaved himself better. We should extend a welcoming hand, but if that welcome is spurned we should not hesitate in withdrawing it.

In terms of providing solutions, I certainly think a more rigorous immigration/integration system is warranted, as well as a reduction in numbers coming in. There needs to be a sensible discussion about immigration without the partisan nonsense of either side.

I agree with this mostly. I have not the facts to back up what I see locally, so if any member has some link that I could use....

My observed point is that most immigrants move to urban areas from more rural areas. They also are moving from less developed areas to more developed areas. Then there is the language differences and often work skills differences. It is not a simple mix. But so many factors that need integrating and so little time to make such adjustments is difficult. The difficulty is not just with the immigrant population though. They are to some degree displacing more established minority populations which causes a bit of local resentment. Just to make it a simple process is difficult. In Colorado, there is a degree of friction between Hispanic and Black groups who feel they may be competing for a limited amount of resources. Now the Koreans are in the mix here. Now the Ethiopians are in the mix here. It just gets bigger as the next group wants everyone to move a bit to make room for the new immigrants as well.

[antaeus]

The future belongs to multiculturalism. The biggest and wealthiest cities in the world will attract people from all over the world. Global cities like London will have a chinese neiberhood, an Arab neiberhood, an African neiberhood etc. The big question is how to manage it in a way that no tentions would flare.

Tensions flare because some people feel left out in some way. There is rarely tension over immigration or ethnicity where there is a fair spread of wealth. Now how we get to that fair spread of wealth is the million dollar question. Literally.

[Knight of Heaven]

If you treat them as your own and be nice its okay but if you make them feel left out and let them live in seperate neighborhoods you could create problems.

From my experience is a two way street. Integration that is. Even when efforts are made to avoid ghettoization, it is only natural for people to congregate towards, and in places of people of the same culture, language etc.
Assimilation takes time, and sometimes doesn't even happen. It depends on Culture. There are cultures that easily are assimilated, or at least integrated, others not so much even over time.

[Mithradates]

The future belongs to multiculturalism. The biggest and wealthiest cities in the world will attract people from all over the world. Global cities like London will have a chinese neiberhood, an Arab neiberhood, an African neiberhood etc. The big question is how to manage it in a way that no tentions would flare.

I thought multiculturalism is when all these people would happily live in the same neighborhood, and not in their different ghettos.

[Coughdrop addict]

We've heard all of this before.

We heard it when Irish and Italians were "the horde". The Trumps of the day warned that they were going to impose their "heathen" ways upon all "native" Americans, that they were going to breed out white people and turn the country into a mirror of the one they had left, and could never possibly assimilate. Violence against Irish and Italians was encouraged and lionized by the right, with the Tarkan's of the day seen as heroes. All while the right continued to preach an apocalyptic vision of an America under Catholicism and how they were the real victims and only defending themselves.

And yet, somehow that Catholic takeover they swore up and down was imminent never happened. Protestants weren't losing their citizenship or being burnt at the stake. The Pope wasn't installed as dictator. Anglo-Saxon's weren't going extinct. As it turned out none of the things the bigots warned about were true. Their hate and fear of the Irish and Italians had no bases whatsoever in reality and the desperate, starving people risking everything for survival weren't in fact the vanguard of an invasion and really were just desperate, starving people.

It was the same with the Chinese. And the Jews. And every other immigrant wave.

"But this time it's going to be different!" The right shouts with the wild-eyed look of a man who desperately wants what he's saying to be true.

The biggest danger western societies face is from the far right and their inability to distinguish fact from delusion. This has allowed unscrupulous wannabe dictators like Trump to get into power by creating crises' out of whole cloth and using them to keep their followers in a constant panic about scary "others".

The implications aren't good. History shows that people who get power by encouraging the ingroup to fear and hate the outgroup can only hold that power by continuing to do so. So, to the extent that they do manage to wall out or imprison or kill off the members of whatever outgroup they picked to start with; they then need to come up with another immediate danger. They've got to attack someone else. Once the new enemy is subdued yet another needs to be found, and it never ends. There is always a new enemy of the people, sinister cabal, or inherently evil ethnicity or race waiting in the wings; and one day it might include yourself, and suddenly you'll be safe to hate and destroy.

[95thrifleman]

We've heard all of this before.

We heard it when Irish and Italians were "the horde". The Trumps of the day warned that they were going to impose their "heathen" ways upon all "native" Americans, that they were going to breed out white people and turn the country into a mirror of the one they had left, and could never possibly assimilate. Violence against Irish and Italians was encouraged and lionized by the right, with the Tarkan's of the day seen as heroes. All while the right continued to preach an apocalyptic vision of an America under Catholicism and how they were the real victims and only defending themselves.

And yet, somehow that Catholic takeover they swore up and down was imminent never happened. Protestants weren't losing their citizenship or being burnt at the stake. The Pope wasn't installed as dictator. Anglo-Saxon's weren't going extinct. As it turned out none of the things the bigots warned about were true. Their hate and fear of the Irish and Italians had no bases whatsoever in reality and the desperate, starving people risking everything for survival weren't in fact the vanguard of an invasion and really were just desperate, starving people.

It was the same with the Chinese. And the Jews. And every other immigrant wave.

"But this time it's going to be different!" The right shouts with the wild-eyed look of a man who desperately wants what he's saying to be true.

The biggest danger western societies face is from the far right and their inability to distinguish fact from delusion. This has allowed unscrupulous wannabe dictators like Trump to get into power by creating crises' out of whole cloth and using them to keep their followers in a constant panic about scary "others".

The implications aren't good. History shows that people who get power by encouraging the ingroup to fear and hate the outgroup can only hold that power by continuing to do so. So, to the extent that they do manage to wall out or imprison or kill off the members of whatever outgroup they picked to start with; they then need to come up with another immediate danger. They've got to attack someone else. Once the new enemy is subdued yet another needs to be found, and it never ends. There is always a new enemy of the people, sinister cabal, or inherently evil ethnicity or race waiting in the wings; and one day it might include yourself, and suddenly you'll be safe to hate and destroy.

You are not wrong. No difference between trump's "mexicans are rapists" and the anti-muslim crowd's "muslims are rapists" rhetoric.

[sumskilz]

We've heard all of this before.

We heard it when Irish and Italians were "the horde". The Trumps of the day warned that they were going to impose their "heathen" ways upon all "native" Americans, that they were going to breed out white people and turn the country into a mirror of the one they had left, and could never possibly assimilate. Violence against Irish and Italians was encouraged and lionized by the right, with the Tarkan's of the day seen as heroes. All while the right continued to preach an apocalyptic vision of an America under Catholicism and how they were the real victims and only defending themselves.

And yet, somehow that Catholic takeover they swore up and down was imminent never happened. Protestants weren't losing their citizenship or being burnt at the stake. The Pope wasn't installed as dictator. Anglo-Saxon's weren't going extinct. As it turned out none of the things the bigots warned about were true. Their hate and fear of the Irish and Italians had no bases whatsoever in reality and the desperate, starving people risking everything for survival weren't in fact the vanguard of an invasion and really were just desperate, starving people.

It was the same with the Chinese. And the Jews. And every other immigrant wave.

"But this time it's going to be different!" The right shouts with the wild-eyed look of a man who desperately wants what he's saying to be true.

The thread topic isn't limited to the US, but the people who had those concerns historically were tremendously successful in severely limiting immigration through legislation so that it would reflect the demographics and culture of the late Nineteenth Century. It wasn't really until their generation died off that the laws were relaxed in 1965. Can't say I condone all their reasoning, but realistically those severe limitations probably did play a role in integration of those who were let in since their numbers were not overwhelming and the numerical limitations were relative to how different or similar their culture of origin was seen to be from mainstream American culture of the day.

[Prodromos]

The Italian, Irish, German, and other immigrants did transform the culture of America, for good and bad. The idea that they became Anglo-Saxon Protestants fresh off the boat is absurd. There was a lot of conflict before they were successfully assimilated into Anglo-American society. Germans for example were banned by law from teaching German in both public and private schools, and people caught speaking German would be beaten on sight; they were eventually forced to Anglicize their names and stop speaking German. American politics was heavily affected as well; for example, until Reagan, successive administrations turned a blind eye to Irish terrorism for fear of upsetting Irish Americans, antagonizing America's closest ally in the process. Even today Protestants have to keep an eye on traditional Catholics, who are a minority of Catholics but still strongly hostile to America's founding ideals. It was a century-long struggle to assimilate all these groups into American society, and these were all thoroughly Christian and European populations, certainly more similar than different to the original American population.

That's completely different from the situation in Western Europe today, wherein a culture thoroughly foreign and fundamentally hostile to the native population is rapidly growing, even approaching majority status. It's pure delusion to believe this won't result in any major changes to European society, and since Middle Eastern Islam has few or no positives to contribute to European society, this certainly warrants concern. And if these concerns aren't addressed by the establishment, people will gravitate toward "extremists" for support, whose favored remedies to the problem won't be very peaceful. The establishment will have to fix the Islam problem to rob nativists of their cause. Pretending that everything's fine and no policy changes are needed only increases support for demagogues. To help put them in power, Putin stands ready to support them with millions of dollars and a world-class propaganda campaign, in exchange for siding with him against the US and NATO. It's a serious problem. Ignoring this issue is the height of stupidity.

[Copperknickers II]

That's completely different from the situation in Western Europe today, wherein a culture thoroughly foreign and fundamentally hostile to the native population is rapidly growing, even approaching majority status.

Why would you say that this culture (I guess you mean Muslims) was 'fundamentally hostile'? This is not my experience of most Muslims and I think you need to back up an assertion like that. A lot of Muslims feel more allegiance to their religion than to their country (this applies in Middle Eastern countries just as much as in European countries though), and most Muslims would probably refuse to fight Muslim opponents if called up to war. I don't think that either of those things mean Muslims are 'hostile' to the native population though, only to the policies of our governments, which is fair enough. (Actually I'd be more worried if they supported our governments, to be honest, given the general competition between Britain, Spain, France and Italy (and a few others) for the prize of most incompetent and malicious idiots ever to run a postwar democracy.

It's pure delusion to believe this won't result in any major changes to European society,

I think it will result in changes to European society, indeed. European society is a vague term, Europe is a complex continent, and our society is constantly changing and has always done so. Honestly when historians look back at European history in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, I'll be surprised if third world immigration makes it into the top 10 of their list of the biggest changes.

and since Middle Eastern Islam has few or no positives to contribute to European society, this certainly warrants concern.

Muslims can offer a lot of benefits to Western society. Obviously everyone will have a different idea of what those benefits are, because we all value different things, but from my perspective, to give a few examples:

1. Muslims in the UK tend to vote for left wing parties, because of the racism of right wing parties as well as their socioeconomic status and usually urban social context.
2. Muslims in the UK are an important ally of peace activism, both within the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Middle East more generally. The more Muslims we have, the less the likelihood of imperialist policies in Muslim countries.
3. Muslims are generally non-white, and thus much less likely to be racist than indigenous Brits.
4. Muslims often have economic skills sorely lacking in the indigenous population, e.g. doctors, chefs, independent shop owners, and business suppliers. Without the Pakistani community, rural Scotland would be a much worse place - a lot of the pubs and indigenous-owned corner shops closed down long ago, and so the high streets of small villages and working class areas would often be totally dead if not for Pakistani curry takeaways and cornershops. I assume other parts of Europe are the same.
5. Muslims generally tend to commit less crime and do better in education than comparable working class white people, at least in Scotland.
6. Muslim (and other third world) cultural attitudes tend to value the extended family, the husband-wife unit, having children, and taking care of grandparents, all things that Westerners could perhaps learn from.
7. Muslim young people tend to avoid alcohol and drugs, not go out partying so much, eat healthier and be less plugged into American gang culture than others their age. In a country with huge pressure on the NHS and police, this has the potential to drastically reduce the money wasted on combatting these things.
8. Muslims are extremely charitable. Mosques often help homeless people and run food banks for non-Muslims as well as for Muslims.

Pretending that everything's fine and no policy changes are needed only increases support for demagogues.

This is true. It's not the case that *everything* is fine: there are serious issues of extremism, sexism, regressive attitudes and crime within subsections of third world migrant communities throughout Europe, Muslim and otherwise. We do need to do more to combat them, and learn from the mistakes of the past such as Rotherham, where political correctness did more harm than good. But I believe that in order to fix these issues, we need to put them in perspective. A lot of European voters rank immigration as the number one or two concern. Come on, this is just stupid. A crimewave in Malmo or Berlin and even a few terror attacks are big problems, but not a civilisational crisis - if you want to see a civilisational crisis then look at the bigger picture, which is the utter chaos being wrought in white working class communities by unfettered capitalism, austerity, abuse of workers' rights, and so on. This is what has destroyed our traditional party systems and led to an opportunity for extremist elements (and outside influencers) to cause trouble and seize power. If we want to fix Europe, or America, we need to tackle the root cause of discontent, not be distracted by the damaging narrative that it's somehow our minorities who are responsible for all our problems, and not the actual people in power.

The thread topic isn't limited to the US, but the people who had those concerns historically were tremendously successful in severely limiting immigration through legislation so that it would reflect the demographics and culture of the late Nineteenth Century. It wasn't really until their generation died off that the laws were relaxed in 1965. Can't say I condone all their reasoning, but realistically those severe limitations probably did play a role in integration of those who were let in since their numbers were not overwhelming and the numerical limitations were relative to how different or similar their culture of origin was seen to be from mainstream American culture of the day.

America is a big country. It contains some of the worst examples of integration of immigrants on display in human history, and also some of the best. Although as regards numbers, we should remember that what's currently driving the record levels of immigration which we've seen in the past 20 years has been:

1. Illegal immigration/asylum seeking. Caused by a mixture of insufficient border controls, and problems in adjacent third world countries (Central America in the US, and the Middle East in Europe) which are in no small part due to Western right wing foreign policy.
2. Skills-based immigration, which has seen third world migrants pour into countries such as the UK under the watch of an anti-immigrant Tory government, precisely because they know fine well that we have crippling skills shortages which demand increased immigration levels, all while they pretend to listen to the concerns of their voters.

And so if we want to reduce numbers, realistically speaking a simply anti-immigration policy decision is not on the cards. It will take a wholesale practical approach to build effective border protections, stabilise third world countries, and train up people so they can actually serve the demands of our economy. Look at the Muslim ban in the US - now imagine it was a Latino ban, which would be the equivalent of having a Muslim ban in Europe. Do you think it would go well, just because it maybe reduced the numbers of criminal Mexicans entering the US? The damage it did would far outweigh any benefits.

[Beckitz]

Nothing like a debate where one side is innately accepting of the phenomenon and the other side intrinsically doesn't care for it because of fundamental differences in their character

[Heathen Hammer]

So Britain and France are actually full-on dictatorships?

I recall UK not having freedom of speech or freedom of self-defense, which is a pretty good sign of authoritarianism. Macron's "let them eat cake" reactions to ongoing protests against him also clearly shows his authoritarian inclining.

Dear Western countries: stop bombing developing countries, stop the unfair neo-liberal economic policies against developing countries and just maybe we won't need to migrate to your white-washed countries!

Nah, they immigrate from countries that were not affected by "war on terror" to countries that never started it. They are welfare migrants.

[AqD]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Full disclosure: As some of you will know, I have ancestry from a third world country myself.

My questions are: | 1. Do you think there is a significant difference between your own values, and those of third world immigrants and their descendants? | 2. Do you think this applies to a majority, or a minority? Either way, is it ethical to enact policies which affect innocent people because of the actions of other individuals? | 3. Do you think there is a problem here, and if yes, what should we realistically do about this problem in concrete terms, keeping in mind your country's legal system and constitution (and may I remind you that if you are in the US or Western Europe, denying asylum applicants and mass deportations are out of the question, and increasing border protections is already happening wholesale).

As an immigrant...

1. Nope. I'd say my values are closer to theirs than my countrymen.

2. Minority and no.

3. Yes, I read on news the immigrants' ethnic/cultural communities are changing things (not first hand experience) and it's worrisome. I'm not going there to join my ethnic community, but to get away from them. Otherwise what's the point of immigration? Minority communities and cultural identities should be broken apart to facilitate adoption of native culture, and asylum applications should be slowed down but with greater resource allocated for each (training etc) to allow this to happen.

The western world should start exporting their culture again, and asylum seekers could be made into successful examples - rather than subjects of pity and marginalized and disliked victims relying on welfare to survive, as most of them are now.

[swabian]

@Copper: I disregard anecdotes in those discussions completely. My experiences with Muslims are very different. They're not entirely negative at all, but mostly, tbh. Your positive evaluation of the migration movements seem to be based on a very narrow and positively biased perspective, that just doesn't hold water in countries that don't get to cherrypick from only the best of immigration patterns. The Turks in Germany for example are a huge disappointment, even though they are the oldest post-war minority of foreigners. They have very low average education, german skills and income and a very high degree :wub:-attitudes among them. About the same applies to Middle Eastern refugees who arrived recently, with the exceptions of minorities like Yazidis and Assyrians and actual families including women and Children and not only Young, male 'teenagers' who look like 30 .


A case against the current immgration model for Europe and Germany is very easily made and very easy to defend, but there is one fundamental aspect to it all that is actually what it boils down to for me: Germany belongs (mainly) to Germans, France (mainly) to the French, Italy (mainly) to the Italians, etc. The natives should have a right to limit immigration simply for the fact that they don't want 15%-30% Middle Easterners in their countries by ~2050 (which is what the calculations done by UN-experts say). These are the countries of the Europeans and they get to (attempt to) steer how much and how fast their social sourroundings change over time. If that's racist then i uncaringly and shamelessly embrace it.


There's also a big global crisis expected in the second half of the century which is when Europe must switch in fortress-mode eventually. And i'm confident that it will anyhow.

So, i know your background and i can see how you appreciate the local Muslim community (it's not only about Muslims btw) for not ever reacting in a racist manner and i hope you don't perceive what i said as a racist slap in the face. I think it's mostly nonsense, dishonesty, embellishment, political spinelessness and whitewashing. It has to be tightly controlled and limited.

[Ludicus]

Below are some demographic facts,
1-The total population of Africa will grow from the current 1.3 billion to 2.5 billion by 2050, while some European countries will see their populations decline or stay relatively stagnant over the same period.

2-Between now and 2025, Russia, Ukraine, Italy, almost all countries in Eastern Europe, and Japan are expected to see their populations decline by several percent.

3-The populations of the US, Canada, Australia, and a few other industrial states with relatively high immigration rates will continue to grow- the US by more than 40 million, Canada by 4.5 million, and Australia by more than 3 million.

Food for thought - Look at the "arc of instability" stretching from Africa through Asia. http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-conte...nstability.png

Now examine the map of the projected global water scarcity, 2015. https://www.fewresources.org/uploads...57068_orig.gif

Examine again the first map plotted against regions likely to face water shortage by 2015 in the second map.
---------

History teaches us that that when societies fail to solve the crucial problems that confront them- famine, epidemic, uncontrolled migration and state failure- decline can turn into centuries of long disastrous collapses.
Ian Morris has attempted to synthesize these and other perspectives into a long term theory of rise and decline of human societies from 14,000 BCE to present. He argues that biology, sociology and geography jointly explain the history of social development, with biology driving development up, sociology shaping how development rises or doesn't, and geography deciding where development rises or falls first.

That being said, migration pressure will rise with 800 million new sub-Saharan African workers by 2050. Inevitably, many Africans will migrate to Europe. What Europe should do about immigration?... Europe should prepare migrants for work in Europeinvest in creating skills that the EU needs. If EU aid to Africa or other countries (*) retains its exclusive focus on stopping migration, it will exacerbate the migration problem in the near future.
* See EU-Turkey refugee agreement: under the agreement, Turkey was promised €6 billion in financial aid.
---
Global problems, global solutions...also,why not a major boost to Africa on the scale of the U.S. Marshall Plan?
According to my fellow countryman António Vitorino is the director general of the International Organization for Migration,

Rather than short-term migration fixes — which I fear are often based precariously on shifting geopolitical sands — we need to go for longer-term structural solutions...Dangerous, irregular migration is in no one’s interest, so investing in more legal migration channels, enhanced mobility and integration will be essential to economic development and growth in countries and societies on both sides of the Mediterranean.

[Ludicus]

I can't edit- it should read -the projected global water scarcity 2025

[Mithradates]

Between now and 2025, Russia, Ukraine, Italy, almost all countries in Eastern Europe, and Japan are expected to see their populations decline by several percent.

Yes? Why is this important?

That being said, migration pressure will rise with 800 million new sub-Saharan African workers by 2050. Inevitably, many Africans will migrate to Europe. What Europe should do about immigration?... Europe should prepare migrants for work in Europeinvest in creating skills that the EU needs.

By 2050 Europe will have its own problem with the unemployment caused by automation, the EU wont need more workers.

Global problems, global solutions...also,why not a major boost to Africa on the scale of the U.S. Marshall Plan?

"Its role in the rapid recovery has been debated. Most reject the idea that it alone miraculously revived Europe, since the evidence shows that a general recovery was already under way. The Marshall Plan's accounting reflects that aid accounted for less than 3% of the combined national income of the recipient countries between 1948 and 1951, which means an increase in GDP growth of only 0.3%. In addition, there is no correlation between the amount of aid received and the speed of recovery: both France and the United Kingdom received more aid, but West Germany recovered significantly faster."

[AqD]

That being said, migration pressure will rise with 800 million new sub-Saharan African workers by 2050. Inevitably, many Africans will migrate to Europe.

Immigration is regulated. We have no right to enter other country until it's granted explicitly. So what does the pressure have to do with them? The inflow rate of people from radically different cultures has to be such they can be easily assimilated, rather than to change the demographics of host countries.

What Europe should do about immigration?...

A great wall, reaching the clouds if needed to be.

[Ludicus]

Mithridates,your prime-Minister Orban has written letters of apology to EU politicians who called for the expulsion of his Fidesz party. In fact, Fidesz does not belong in the EPP.
I predict that your country, will soon be expelled from the EU. I also tend to think that soon or later the renew of the Warsaw pact is certain. The autocratic eastern countries are transforming democracy from an instrument of inclusion into one of exclusion.That's the reason why Fidesz (Hungary) and PiS (Poland) do not pretend to stand for all Hungarians or all Poles.They stand for all "true" Hungarians and all "true" Poles.
But I'm not surprised- after the fall of the Berlin Wall,the most educated and liberal eastern Europeans became the first to leave their countries. In Poland, ironically, 1.6 % of those living in the country were born outside the country, and only 0.1 percent are Muslim.Eastern Europe is made up of small, aging, ethnically homogeneous societies. So, it's not a surprise that cultural and ethnic diversity are seen as an existential threat.
Why everyone's talking about the Venezuelan elections, but what about Hungary? In April 2018, Fidesz won the national elections and yet international monitors concluded that the opposition never really had a fair chance.
So, yes, "get a big wall reaching the clouds" and rest in a decadent peace.

[Mithradates]

Mithridates,your prime-Minister Orban has written letters of apology to EU politicians who called for the expulsion of his Fidesz party. In fact, Fidesz does not belong in the EPP.
I predict that your country, will soon be expelled from the EU. I also tend to think that soon or later the renew of the Warsaw pact is certain. The autocratic eastern countries are transforming democracy from an instrument of inclusion into one of exclusion.That's the reason why Fidesz (Hungary) and PiS (Poland) do not pretend to stand for all Hungarians or all Poles.They stand for all "true" Hungarians and all "true" Poles.
But I'm not surprised- after the fall of the Berlin Wall,the most educated and liberal eastern Europeans became the first to leave their countries. In Poland, ironically, 1.6 % of those living in the country were born outside the country, and only 0.1 percent are Muslim.Eastern Europe is made up of small, aging, ethnically homogeneous societies. So, it's not a surprise that cultural and ethnic diversity are seen as an existential threat.
Why everyone's talking about the Venezuelan elections, but what about Hungary? In April 2018, Fidesz won the national elections and yet international monitors concluded that the opposition never really had a fair chance.
So, yes, "get a big wall reaching the clouds" and rest in a decadent peace.

Not possible, there is no legal procedure to expell a country from the EU.

Your comment does not address what I wrote btw

[anant]

If we take a look at history, we might find some parallels; for example, when we think of European colonialism, we usually picture the white "sahib" or "bawana" living an exploitative existence and in-charge of the "natives", but few of us consider the centuries of white immigration that preceded this stage. Taking the example of just two nations, India and China, we could see how before these countries collapsed into european rule, similar debates about "immigration" motivated their elites. The disdain the Mughal noble felt for the "unwashed ferangi" was mirrored exactly by the contempt felt by the Confucian Intellectual for the "western barbarian"; both considered the white man as an immoral opportunist from a diseased and impoverished land, given by nature to be criminal and greedy for wealth, without the benefits of a value-based culture and without the constraints of an inborn socially responsible attitude. The europeans who found acceptance at this stage of history were those who assimilated, often converted, into replica's of their adopted nation's cultural stereotypes. The Europeans, on the other hand, found the native rulers "effete" and "lazy", pre-occupied with their pleasures and decadence, while they as "immigrants" toiled away to achieve practical progress on the ground, making loads of money in the process and thus acquiring power and prestige to offset their racial and cultural disadvantages. Where this situation eventually led to is quite clear ie: the aforementioned white "sahib".
And thus this mirror shows us the truth; "immigrants" come from disadvantageous circumstances to the centres of global wealth to improve their lives; they are highly motivated to achieve personal "progress" or "growth", often by any means necessary; their economic activities and networks benefit their "homelands" tremendously and they achieve an exaggerated importance in their "native" elite circles; eventually they come to control the commanding heights of their host country's economies, but until they do, they are often victims of abuse and derision by their "hosts".
In the age of European colonialism, the "host" countries proved, ultimately, incapable of assimilating these immigrants, largely because of their rigid and restricted systems of power and culture; the modern "west", could theoretically, move away from this narrow racial and religious definition of nativity and so co-opt these modern immigrants into their value systems. If they fail to do this, in the coming decades, as economic power shifts to the 3rd world (in part because of their rapidly immigrating citizens and their economic activities in the west ), expect their Governments to begin applying pressure on the west for modern versions of "extraterritorial" rights etc., and expect a gunboat (or two, or half a dozen) before this century is out.