Summary
The “Signalgate” scandal confirms the Trump administration’s deep disdain for Europe, viewing it not just as obsolete but actively wanting its demise.
There are 3 major implications: an inevitable trade war where Europe must unite; continued US pressure on Greenland despite European pushback; and Europe needing to support Ukraine not just without US help, but potentially against US interests.
European leaders who stand firm against US bullying are seeing rising approval ratings.
Europe should “with firmness, courage and politeness” chart its own path forward.
Meanwhile I’m trying to figure out how best to flee the US and set up in Denmark or some similar place with a much higher quality of life and fewer 21st century Nazis.
Careful with Denmark. Our immigration laws have become pretty strict. We’re also a pretty tiny country.
Unfortunately a lot of European countries have been going down that dark path, just not as far along as the US. I’m cautiously hopeful that the current events will help steer us back in the right direction but we’ll see…
Curious, why are strict immigration laws a “dark path”?
Look at the US reasoning for their strict immigration and realize its the same motivations.
You really believe Denmark is looking at the Trump’s administration approach as something to model itself after? What are the common issues Denmark is facing that match the US response?
Listening to those that push for strict immigration in Europe you could easily confuse them for Republicans.
Now that just sounds like the arguments from the other far-right party in America in the Cultural Wars used to distract the people from the actual lack of economic prosperity and quality of life for the many.
“Strict immigration policies” needs not be the “so bad we even betray those we invited in” shit of the far-right: something as simple as having limited numbers per year and preferring the provision of help to the worse off refugees rather than economic migrants is a “strict immigration policy” whilst actually being a pretty Leftwing and Humanitarian posture.
It’s reasonable that countries which are wealtier can’t just allow anybody out of the other billions of human beings living in places which aren’t as wealthy to come over and settle there, simply because several times the local population worth of people with far lower average education who can’t even speak the local language coming over will basically destroy the very reason the country is a properous as it is (mainly because those people will be far less productive than the locals but still consume roughly the same amount of resources per-capita).
(This is without even going into the cultural clashes and subsequent rise of the far-right that happen when people from totally different cultures move to a country in large numbers within a short time period)
Once one accepts that no-limits immigration is mathematically and socially destructive, the conversation can then moves into the world of the possible, such as how to make sure it’s the most deserving who get invited in, helping those who come integrate (as social clashes with immigrants are almost always just prejudice against the unknown and mismatched cultural expectations), managing the pressures of all those new people on infrastructure and so on: that’s things like activelly looking for the worst off people in refugee camps in the worst areas and helping those (including inviting them over), adult education including of the local language to that those coming in can become fully productive citizens of their adopted country, making sure housing markets are properly supplying demand to reduce the pressure of the population growth associated with immigration and so on.
Immigration policy needs not be the anti-other hostility to the point of kicking out the very people who have been invited in (quite extreme when you think that treating one’s guests well is an important element of lots of cultures) of the far-right, but it can’t be the pie-in-the-sky open door policies of neoliberals cosplaying as lefties with Identity Politics.
Ultimatelly there have to be limits of a “number of people per time unit” kind, the difference between the rightwing take and the leftwing take is the criteria for chosing who gets in if there are more candidates than the limits.
Good luck. If you don’t pass as a refugee, you just need money, a job, a place to live and to prove all that to the central bureaucracy