Europeans — especially Germans — are increasingly keen on curbing immigration and are less focused on climate change, according to a study by a Danish-based think tank.
Europe has seen a sharp rise in the share of people who say that reducing immigration should be a top government priority, according to a study published Wednesday. Germany is topping the list.
At the same time, there was less desire to prioritize fighting climate change in the same countries, according to the survey commissioned by the Denmark-based Alliance of Democracies Foundation think tank.
Nearly half of German respondents put focus on migration
Since 2022, an increasing number of Europeans say their government should prioritize “reducing immigration,” rising from just under 20% to a quarter.
Meanwhile, concern about climate change was on the slide across the continent.
“In 2024, for the first time, reducing immigration is a greater priority for most Europeans than fighting climate change,” the report said.
“Nowhere is this reversal more striking than in Germany, which now leads the world with the highest share of people who want their government to focus on reducing immigration — topping all other priorities — and now nearly twice as high as fighting climate change,” the report read.
Bad news, Germany, because immigration is about to increase because of climate change.
Right-wing media has really done a number on critical thinking.
From what I see, lots of people in Germany understand that some countries will be hit hard by climate change. The key issue is that they don’t care, and instead of stopping climate change their solution to this is to shut the borders and let no one in. These people are so resistant to changing their way of life, they’d happily trade people’s lives for it.
Changing our way of life is required to limit climate change and the effects it will have globally and locally, not to accommodate immigrants. Your rant is misplaced, and I don’t agree with it either.
People in western nations are largely responsible for climate change. Someone in Syria won’t be flying around the world and buying new clothes all the time. But they will be the ones hit the hardest by climate change, so they will likely either die or become refugees trying to come to the west.
Also, a lot of our western wealth is based on exploitation of those nations (through colonialism and later capitalism or wars). So if westerners don’t want people from poor countries to come to the west they should help those nations to recover from that exploitation.
Furthermore we need to do these things, because a bigger influx of desperate migrants will steer western politics even further to the right. That’s never a great thing and will lead to more inequality and possibly the collapse of our democratic systems.
Finally to your point about migrants being more criminal. That is largely a result of worse economic circumstances and outlooks. Improve their chances and watch the crime rate drop.
That’s because when right-wing politicians get into power, the first thing out the window is education and critical thinking. You can’t have a population that thinks too much because they’re harder to control.
“So long as they (the Proles) continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern…Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.” George Orwell, 1984
uncontrolled migration is largely caused by the effects of climate change on poor southern countries.
I came to say this exactly. Also I just realized that I would love to move to a beautiful beach area in one of the Pacific facing tropical countries…places where poor people migrate away from… Does that make sense? That having money protects you from climate change? If basically a middle class person from the US can be rich in these poor countries, does that mean that they are less affected? You can afford fruits and vegetables if you have money? What if more rich assholes move into the area? Do they also get to still afford fresh bananas, and strawberries? Something tells me that they would quickly saturate the area like here in Seattle where every event seems to be packed to the brim with people. There’s just a packet room no matter what you choose to do. Hiking? Shoulder to shoulder. Swimming? Sardines in a can. Etc.
The Germans have a guaranteed welfare system for migrants. That is one major reason they are the preferred destination, and able-bodied people who go to another country just for welfare, are not good people, which coincidentally linked to increased crime. It seems to me, white folks try hard to convince people they are not racist. Then they live safely in their gated communities.
I’m pretty sure the increased crime among refugees here in germany is largely due to the laughably long wait times (months, if you’re lucky, on average 3 years) until their case gets reviewed, and them only gettting a tiny allowance (max. 182€ per month) and not being allowed to work during that time. Of course they end up committing crimes more often in such a situation, it’s not because they are bad people.
Gewalttaten nehmen drastisch zu: Zahl tatverdächtiger Ausländer springt nach oben - n-tv.de - https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Zahl-tatverdaechtiger-Auslaender-springt-nach-oben-article24858209.html
Propaganda works and people are stupid.
It does. We really need positive propaganda. Dupe everyone into thinking that climate change is real, we have to do something now, doubling down on renewable and sustainable resources is required, etc. I’d love to brainwash everyone into believing that public education needs more funds and resources. Or that rivers and lakes shouldn’t be polluted.
I’ve got news for you guys, one of these things is going to radically affect the other.
Maybe the key to getting old people to care about climate change is to frame the mass displacement and migration that will occur as a direct result of it.
That is pretty genius for sure but I think the issue is that these people think that once shit hits the fan they will be able to stop the desperate masses at their border by legalisation or whatever.
Ameribro here. I’ve hosted a German exchange kid. She was really, really worried about immigration and “preserving German culture”. I pointed out to her that:
-
Culture is not a fixed thing, it’s always drifting a little bit, with or without immigrants. That’s why old people always complain about how different everything is.
-
Germany is actually younger than the US as a state by about a century, and contemporary Germany has really only existed since either the end of WW2 or the fall of the Soviet Union, depending on your view. (IMO, the collapse of East Germany is non-trivial. Her mom was an East German and described to us how they had an entirely separate culture with different groceries and everything and all that just vaporized into nothing when the wall fell, replaced with West German culture almost overnight). So, what does it really even mean to be defending German culture?
-
There’s always hardship when a new group of people arrive, but over time you usually end up with something that’s better than what you had before if you can learn to embrace it. US culture has, in spite of our issues with racism, tangibly benefitted from immigration over the centuries.
She wasn’t receptive to it. A lot of Europeans who hold anti-immigratiom views insist that it’s different for Europe when they have immigrants than it is for the US. I’ve yet to have one persuasively explain why that’s true and not just whiny exceptionalism.
I mostly agree with your conclusion, but this is a very american (I.e. ignorant) response to her concern and i am not surprised she wasnt receptive. I think you underestimate the difference between a country like yours (which has always been a ‘salad bowl’ of cultures united by a commitment to liberalism) and mine (Germany, which is essentially a big tribe of tribes). This difference is even more stark if you look at a place like Denmark.
Here are a few of your points that gave me this impression:
Germany is actually younger than the US
Her concern is (to me) obviously independent of the state we happen to live under. Germaneness is not tied to a political entity. East Germans were German, Volga Germans are German and the German speaking people under the hre were German. (“German” Americans are not German btw.) This also makes your comment about
Her mom was an East German and described to us how they had an entirely separate culture
baffling (to me).
US culture has, … tangibly benefitted from immigration over the centuries.
The us is in many ways a much worse country than Germany (or almost any EU country). I don’t see why we should strive to emulate that model.
I think the question that really needs to be answered is how you plan on enforcing cultural normality. If, as you say, Germans have had a strong identify regardless of historical causes and conditions, it sounds like they’ve figured their culture out throughout the decades and centuries without someone pointing a gun at them over it. So then why should the force and violence of the government be necessary now, and to what extent? Are we just talking arresting brown people, or should we start arresting anyone who speaks something besides German in public, since they’re eroding the culture too?
I also wanted to respond to your remark about emulating the US. You don’t give rich old white men enough credit, they’ve managed to turn the country into a shambling wreck all while keeping everyone else locked out of governance. Maybe if we’d had those other voices, we wouldn’t have Donald Trump soliciting a billion dollar bribe to roll back all of our environmental protections.
Are we just talking arresting brown people, or should we start arresting anyone who speaks something besides German in public, since they’re eroding the culture too?
The fuck are you on about.
If you want to get a handle on this I suggest you start with concepts such as the assimilation capacity of a population as well as the possible speed of different kinds of natural cultural drift. If you want to avoid to avoid fuelling xenophobic ressentiment, what you need to make sure is that cultural drift caused by new arrivals is lower than what people accept, in that case people become more tolerant of that kind of shift, though of course that has a limit (and that’s fine). OTOH if you exceed it, people become less tolerant of shifts. In other words: Culture is a non-newtonian fluid. You create resistance by pushing too hard, if you go in gently there very well might be no resistance at all.
The erm force applied to that non-newtonian fluid is more or less number of arrivals multiplied by germane cultural difference multiplied by economical impact. When Germans flock to Sweden the Swedes worry about those “closed up and private” people, they’re somewhat taken aback by directness but secretly also somewhat glad that there’s someone actually complaining in public, not just in private. In the numbers that we’re talking about the Swedes aren’t worried in cultural terms, though there’s some gripes among some around housing prices in rural areas (not among the Swedes selling the houses, of course). Berliners are way more worried about Swabian arrivals.
And, really, let’s take Sweden as an example because they’ve been so… Swedish about the whole thing. Over decades their immigration worked just fine, they had a certain number and that number didn’t exceed the assimilation capacity, and then Swedes said “we are the best so of course we’ll take in more” and more came and assimilation failed – and the Swedes, being Swedes, never complained in public. It’s a high-trust environment, of course you trust others, even if government policy led to, one way or the other, segregation: Arrivals live in one place, native Swedes in another. Which then makes it even harder for the new arrivals to even acculturate much less assimilate, leading to more segregation, leading to more difficulties. At some point a dam broke and Swedes stopped complaining in private and complained in public – the backlash. Which led to people who were born in Sweden from perfectly assimilated parents suddenly found themselves on the outside of their own culture.
If, instead their politicians had started early saying “we need to actively work against that segregation, we need to change our public housing policy to make sure that neighbourhoods are mixed, and if that doesn’t suffice we need to limit the number of new arrivals” things would’ve went very differently – such a policy would have increased assimilation capacity. But that would’ve implied things such as Sweden not being perfect which is unthinkable to a Swede… at least to say aloud. Fucking swots.
And Germany’s population, and with that the economy, would start shrinking without immigration. That’s what a fertility rate of 1.7 gets you. Things would go downhill fast enough.
People would just start blaming the politicians for the rampant inflation and reduction in services that a scarcity of workers creates, and then vote in some fascist to “fix” it, first and foremost without allowing immigration. He will overthrow the media and judiciary and “fix” it by starting wars with the neighbors or doing ethnic cleansing at home.
All countries are going to go sub-replacement within a couple of decades. Aside from our constant inability to reform the pension system Germany is actually in quite a good spot: Those 1.7 are very stable, there’s no grand fluctuations, and no real reason to suspect it will suddenly crash. It’s a rate which, yes, leads to a degree of gerontocracy but it’s not catastrophic for the economy or pension system in the sense that improvements in productivity can make up for it.
I suspect it will rise again and then hover around 2 but for that to happen spooks like climate change related hesitancy will have to go (will happen with time, the earth can easily sustain the overall projected population levels) and the sources of immigration will have to dry up to a noticeable degree, which will also happen with time.
Culture is identity. Isn’t that obvious from looking at different people all over the world? It is true, there is a clash of cultures because everyone is proud of their identity. Nationalism is extremely powerful because it is human instinct to look upon kinship. Humans are social animals.
There’s always hardship when a new group of people arrive, but over time you usually end up with something that’s better than what you had before if you can learn to embrace it. US culture has, in spite of our issues with racism, tangibly benefitted from immigration over the centuries.
Now tell that to the native americans and see how well they take it.
Preserving German culture and worrying about immigration - you had an AfD or nazi kid in your home.
Why do people need to act the way you think they do?
Why can a group of people not enjoy the way they live and want to keep it. Why are you right for saying a country should be forced to change?
I’m making an observation that any resistance to change is just wishful thinking. Even if you tried very hard to preserve a culture as it is, the causes and conditions that created that culture are also subject to change, and so the culture that arises from those causes and conditions will change as well. You’ve attached yourself to your idea of what your culture is (or should be), and decided that since you prefer that idea, then it’s acceptable to use force against other people to attain it.
I, personally, think that using the might of the government to enforce cultural values is not only crazy, but also stupid, deadly, and wasteful. Not everyone agrees with me, and that’s fine, you’re free to disagree and join the ranks of other whacko authoritarian countries that use violence to enforce cultural norms. But that’s not the kind of place I want to live, myself.
By the way, I noticed your username, Wanderer. That wouldn’t per chance be a reference to one of the names of Odin, would it? I know Hedonism’s quite popular among, well, certain groups, so it caught my attention.
You seem to conflicting everything I had said and what the argument is about. No one is saying the government should force culture to remain static. That’s such a ridiculous premise and such a bad faith comment.
The issue is Germans enjoy their way of life and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Germans have seen the culture change with an influx of immigrants that do not reflect or adapt to German culture.
No one should dictate how a country should change but it is being forced to change by immigrants in a way that Germans do not want. If Germans want their culture, they do not want people coming over and bringing another culture that is replacing their own why is that bad? Why should an American try to control a foreign culture? Should have the right the live how they want and Germans culture and liberty differ to that if others and that is in jeopardy.
My name is based on the fact that I love experiencing other cultures, travelling, living in different places. Also that I Wandered over from Reddit so it’s a bit of a mixed comment. I’m not sure what you are alluding to. Can you be more clear?