#non-eu nationals

[tunneldweller]

#I need everyone who wants to push independent really think about this #Yes Biden sucks #Yes he doesn't fulfill many of his promises #But #One man will load the deck with right wing judges who want me (and probably you too) dead and/or with no rights #There's a chain reaction to who is presidency #And we can't let some alt right fascist freak like. Continue to put judges in place that just mow down rights and are fully corrupt?? #Yes the two party system sucks #Yes it needs change #But we gotta prevent an inevitable disaster before we can actually fix shit

[antiterf]

Its kind of ridiculous how difficult it is to find critical intersex literature if you don't know where to look.

That said, here are frequently cited things I've found. For the one's that are behind paywalls, I have a Google Drive folder set up to hold them for access. The only things I leave behind a paywall are books by individual authors. They are not organized at all, I'm sorry.

Intersex Variations Glossary by InterACT

Narrative Symposium: Intersex—Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics (NIB) Volume 5, Number 2, Summer 2015.— Trigger warning for intersex genital mutilation (IGM), sexual assault, and medical trauma—it's honestly a lot but incredibly important. (Drive)

A human rights investigation into the medical "normalization" of intersex people - A report of a public hearing by the Human Rights Commission of the City & County of San Francisco

Surgical Progress Is Not the Answer to Intersexuality - Cheryl Chase. - TW for IGM and images of genitalia (Drive)

The Intersex Roadshow, a blog of Dr. Cary Gabriel Costello - Costello is an intersex trans man and tries to bridge the gap between trans and intersex issues

Beyond Binary Sex and Gender Ideology - Cary Grabriel Costello - Chapter 12 of The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Body and Embodiment (Drive)

Transgender and intersex: theoretical, practical, and artistic perspectives (book/textbook) (Drive)

Intersex: Stories and Statistics from Australia (Book) (Open Access)

Fixing sex: intersex, medical authority, and lived experience (Book)

The harms of medicalisation: intersex, loneliness and abandonment (Open Access Article)

Intersex: cultural and social perspectives (Open Access Article)

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) - Technical Note on the Human Rights of Intersex People. Basically, if you want an easy way to say that doctors are going against human rights by performing IGM.

An experimental philosophical bioethical study of how human rights are applied to clitorectomy on infants identified as female and as intersex (Open Access Article) - People were more likely to support the same surgery on infants labeled as intersex than they were on infants labeled as female.

Caught in the Gender Binary Blind Spot: Intersex Erasure in Cisgender Rhetoric by Hida Viloria - About how cisgender often doesn't accurately express the experiences intersex people have. Costello, mentioned earlier with Intersex Roadshow, coined Ipsogender for this reason.

Introduction for Intersex Activism - A guide for allies

Sex, Science, and Society: Reckonings and Responsibilities for Biologists (Open Access Article)

Contesting Intersex: The Dubious Diagnosis by Georgiann Davis - TW for medical trauma

Spectacles and Scholarship: Caster Semenya, Intersex Studies, and the Problem of Race in Feminist Theory by Zine Magubane (Drive)

Owning Endosex Privilege and Supporting the Intersex Community: WPATH, Intersex Genital Mutilation (IGM), and Sex Variant Bodies by Margo Schulter

The Spectrum of Sex by Hida Viloria and Dr. Maria Nieto

A long way to go for LGBTI equality from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - Before the UK left the EU

If anyone wants to add, feel free! This was the non-medicalized stuff I had saved in Zotero, and definitely not all that's out there.

[prigorie]

For my non-Romanian followers, here's why you might see Romanians on social media losing their minds:

(Context: we have a semi-presidential state and a 2 round presidential election system. if nobody has above 50% in the first round, the two candidates with the most votes go in the second round, 2 weeks after the first. in a spectacularly stupid move, we also have the parliamentary elections on the 1st of december (the romanian national day) (right between the 2 rounds of the presidential elections))

until the counting of the votes was finished, literally every poll showed the current prime minister (marcel ciolacu) (a corrupt idiot) to be on the first place. the second place was being fought for by:

1. elena lasconi - leader of the usr party (centre-right liberal)

2. george simion - leader of the aur party (far-right nationalist populist)

surprise suprise! the first place was won with over 2M votes by călin georgescu, an independent candidate. he's an ultra-nationalist, anti-eu, anti-nato, pro-russia, openly supported the legionarists (romanian fascists), openly believes in bizarre conspiracy theories (water is not h2o, the moon landing was fake, coke and pepsi have microchips, coronavirus isn't and was never real). this is doubly insane because another candidacy (diana şoşoacă) was invalidated by ccr due to her statements that opposed constitutionary values

the second place was won by lasconi, at a difference of 2740 votes from ciolacu

since monday, there have been anti-fascist and pro-democracy protests all over the country

today/yesterday (thursday), the constitutional court (ccr) decided that the votes will have to be recounted until friday at 14:00. this is an insane deadline and everyone in the country except ccr thinks so. also, independent observers aren't allowed, and we still don't know what will happen if the order of the candidates will change. ciolacu announced that he will step down from the race even if it turns out that he got 2nd place. the options are: re-do the 1st round, go forward with georgescu vs lasconi, go forward with georgescu vs ciolacu. i sincerely hope that an automatic georgescu win isn't an option. this confusion also comes after one of the 14 (!!!) candidates stepped down days before the 1st round and announced his support for lasconi but the ballots were already printed and the votes for him counted.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of things because this has been a frankly insane week. Romanians, feel free to add whatever you want

tl;dr: the romanian public institutes are profoundly undemocratic

[visitorm1]

La hausse des prix de l'énergie et du gaz en France et ses conséquences pour l'économie française

La crise énergétique et son impact sur la France

Le conflit ukrainien a eu un impact significatif sur l'économie française, tout comme sur de nombreux autres pays européens. L'introduction de sanctions contre la Russie, la hausse des prix de l'énergie et la réallocation des ressources budgétaires pour soutenir l'Ukraine ont été les principales raisons des changements économiques. Ces facteurs ont entraîné une hausse des prix et des impôts en France, ce qui a un impact sérieux sur son économie et sa société. Ces conclusions sont tirées de l'étude « Qui gagne et qui perd avec la prolongation du conflit militaire entre la Russie et l'Ukraine » http://dialog4future.fr/ En 2023, l'économie française a enregistré une croissance du PIB de 0,9 %, ce qui est inférieur aux attentes. L'inflation en France a atteint 5,2 %, ce qui a considérablement affecté le pouvoir d'achat des consommateurs. Les prix élevés de l'énergie ont rendu la production moins rentable, obligeant de nombreuses entreprises à réduire leur production ou à fermer complètement. Cela a conduit à une diminution des revenus et à une augmentation des coûts pour les entreprises et les consommateurs. Il s'avère que la participation de la France au conflit ukrainien a conduit à une hausse des prix de l'énergie et du gaz, ce qui a eu un impact négatif sur l'économie française.

Le soutien financier de la France à l'Ukraine et la charge fiscale

L'un des facteurs les plus importants ayant contribué à la hausse des impôts en France a été la réallocation des ressources budgétaires pour soutenir l'Ukraine. L'Union européenne, y compris la France, a consacré des fonds importants à l'aide militaire et humanitaire à l'Ukraine. Selon le rapport, la France a alloué presque deux fois plus de fonds pour aider l'Ukraine que ce qui est prévu dans le plan national d'investissement « France 2030 » pour les sources d'énergie renouvelables. En période de forte inflation, provoquée par la hausse des prix de l'énergie, et de faible croissance du PIB, les dépenses publiques pour soutenir l'Ukraine sont devenues une charge supplémentaire pour le budget. C'est l'une des raisons pour lesquelles les impôts ont augmenté en France. Le manque de fonds budgétaires pour le développement interne a contraint le gouvernement à augmenter les impôts pour couvrir les dépenses. Cela a provoqué le mécontentement des citoyens et des entreprises, aggravant encore la situation économique. Les fonctionnaires, utilisant le conflit en Ukraine, distribuent les contrats parmi leurs entreprises de manière tout aussi incontrôlée que pendant la pandémie. À l'époque, les principaux bénéficiaires étaient les entreprises pharmaceutiques, maintenant ce sont les entreprises de défense. Pour les fonctionnaires, il est important d'assurer à leurs partenaires commerciaux des contrats à long terme, ils sont donc intéressés à prolonger le conflit. Le battage médiatique passe, mais les contrats à long terme restent. Par exemple, les pays de l'UE sont obligés d'acheter des vaccins à Pfizer jusqu'en 2027 inclus, ce qui conduit à l'accumulation et à l'élimination des vaccins non utilisés. Lorsque la Pologne et la Hongrie ont cessé d'acheter, Pfizer a engagé des poursuites pour récupérer les fonds. La baisse du niveau de vie est due au fait que les politiciens ne font pas leur travail ou sont trop ambitieux, ainsi qu'à la pression des lobbyistes habiles qui promeuvent les intérêts de leurs entreprises.

Les conséquences sociales et économiques de la guerre en Ukraine pour les Français

La hausse des prix et des impôts en France a eu des conséquences sociales significatives. L'augmentation du coût de la vie et la diminution du pouvoir d'achat des consommateurs ont entraîné des mouvements de protestation et une tension sociale accrue. Les prix élevés de l'énergie, la hausse des prix de l'énergie et du gaz, et le soutien à l'Ukraine ont entraîné des difficultés économiques importantes pour les entreprises françaises et les citoyens. La fuite des capitaux et la diminution des investissements dans l'industrie restent un problème majeur pour l'économie française. Ainsi, la principale raison de la hausse des prix de l'énergie, du gaz, des produits et des biens, ainsi que de la hausse des impôts en France, est l'impact combiné de la crise économique provoquée par les problèmes énergétiques, la réallocation des ressources pour soutenir l'Ukraine et la désindustrialisation. Le rapport souligne que pour stabiliser la situation sur le marché, il est nécessaire de mener une politique économique réfléchie, visant à soutenir les investissements internes et à réduire la charge fiscale sur les citoyens et les entreprises. Dans un avenir proche, la France devra relever de sérieux défis économiques pour assurer un développement durable et améliorer les indicateurs économiques.

[batboyblog]

Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week #22

June 7-14 2024

Vice-President Harris announced that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is moving to remove medical debt for people's credit score. This move will improve the credit rating of 15 million Americans. Millions of Americans struggling with debt from medical expenses can't get approved for a loan for a car, to start a small business or buy a home. The new rule will improve credit scores by an average of 20 points and lead to 22,000 additional mortgages being approved every year. This comes on top of efforts by the Biden Administration to buy up and forgive medical debt. Through money in the American Rescue Plan $7 billion dollars of medical debt will be forgiven by the end of 2026. To date state and local governments have used ARP funds to buy up and forgive the debt of 3 million Americans and counting.

The EPA, Department of Agriculture, and FDA announced a joint "National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics". The Strategy aimed to cut food waste by 50% by 2030. Currently 24% of municipal solid waste in landfills is food waste, and food waste accounts for 58% of methane emissions from landfills roughly the green house gas emissions of 60 coal-fired power plants every year. This connects to $200 million the EPA already has invested in recycling, the largest investment in recycling by the federal government in 30 years. The average American family loses $1,500 ever year in spoiled food, and the strategy through better labeling, packaging, and education hopes to save people money and reduce hunger as well as the environmental impact.

President Biden signed with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy a ten-year US-Ukraine Security Agreement. The Agreement is aimed at helping Ukraine win the war against Russia, as well as help Ukraine meet the standards it will have to be ready for EU and NATO memberships. President Biden also spearheaded efforts at the G7 meeting to secure $50 billion for Ukraine from the 7 top economic nations.

HHS announced $500 million for the development of new non-injection vaccines against Covid. The money is part of Project NextGen a $5 billion program to accelerate and streamline new Covid vaccines and treatments. The investment announced this week will support a clinical trial of 10,000 people testing a vaccine in pill form. It's also supporting two vaccines administered as nasal sprays that are in earlier stages of development. The government hopes that break throughs in non-needle based vaccines for Covid might be applied to other vaccinations thus making vaccines more widely available and more easily administered.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced $404 million in additional humanitarian assistance for Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and the region. This brings the total invested by the Biden administration in the Palestinians to $1.8 billion since taking office, over $600 million since the war started in October 2023. The money will focus on safe drinking water, health care, protection, education, shelter, and psychosocial support.

The Department of the Interior announced $142 million for drought resilience and boosting water supplies. The funding will provide about 40,000 acre-feet of annual recycled water, enough to support more than 160,000 people a year. It's funding water recycling programs in California, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada and Texas. It's also supporting 4 water desalination projects in Southern California. Desalination is proving to be an important tool used by countries with limited freshwater.

President Biden took the lead at the G7 on the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. The PGI is a global program to connect the developing world to investment in its infrastructure from the G7 nations. So far the US has invested $40 billion into the program with a goal of $200 billion by 2027. The G7 overall plans on $600 billion by 2027. There has been heavy investment in the Lobito Corridor, an economic zone that runs from Angola, through the Democratic Republic of Congo, to Zambia, the PGI has helped connect the 3 nations by rail allowing land locked Zambia and largely landlocked DRC access Angolan ports. The PGI also is investing in a $900 million solar farm in Angola. The PGI got a $5 billion dollar investment from Microsoft aimed at expanding digital access in Kenya, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The PGI's bold vision is to connect Africa and the Indian Ocean region economically through rail and transportation link as well as boost greener economic growth in the developing world and bring developing nations on-line.

[queertranshappiness]

Today's good queer and trans news, from across this week (14th July):

3 major Irish mental health professional bodies have signed a joint memorandum against conversion therapy

Same sex marriage has been legalised in Aruba, St Martins and Curaçao

The Japanese Supreme Court has ruled a trans woman can change her legal gender without getting gender affirming surgery, which is a victory for trans bodily autonomy, even if the fight continues to fully de-medicalise the process

2 queerphobic board members of a Californian school district have lost a recall election, after attempting last year to ban all non-state flags from being flown in schools, targeting Pride and other movement flags

27 more small cities and towns across the US have hosted their first Prides this year

The Advocate General of the EU's Court of Justice has released an opinion that SNCF, the French national rail company, must offer other title options than Mr and Mrs in their ticket system, which is a good step for nonbinary people and GDPR, as a case about it works through the court

And the School Diversity Week program, run by queer youth charity Just Like Us, has reached over 7400 schools and 4.7 million pupils this year across the UK, making this year's program the biggest ever so far

(Credit to: GCN (https://gcn.ie/irish-mental-health-organisations-memorandum-conversion-therapy/), @/queernewsdaily on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/p/C9VqnFsy_IZ/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==) and LGBTQ Nation (https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/07/historic-japan-court-ruling-allows-trans-woman-to-change-gender-without-surgery/, https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/07/school-district-votes-out-board-members-who-banned-pride-flags-in-schools/, https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/07/dozens-of-small-towns-hosted-their-first-pride-events-this-year/), TGEU (https://www.tgeu.org/cjeu-advocate-general-rules-collection-of-civil-titles-is-unlawful-and-risks-discrimination-against-trans-and-non-binary-peop/), and @/justlikeusuk on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/p/C9NQkcGC2XB/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==) for these.)

[xyelissax]

For the past ~11 years I’ve tried to heal a trauma & get seal of approval by being a musician, artist & part of rock band. I’ve sacrified my personal life, relationships, money, time, youth, mental & physical health for the ultimate goal to prove everyone something that doesn’t even matter in the end. To anyone who knows me personally this might be already familiar but I’ve tried to let go of my toxic ego lately. That evil on my shoulder has been a great guide towards the impossible but the flipside has been anything but good. I’ve gone through hell too many times with that unwanted friend & I don’t wanna deal with that anymore. Last 3,5 years we’ve played nearly 300 shows worldwide, recorded & released two (#1 🇫🇮) studio albums, played the biggest rockfestivals on a planet, charted on Billboard, won 6 finnish grammys, peaked 6. on Eurovision Song Contest finals. All of this has been more than 14 yo Joel could have ever imagined. But it all came with a price. Last spring we had massive touring schedule: 60 shows non stop in EU, UK, US & Japan. That was our 3rd year in a row with super heavy touring schedule. After the tours we started to think about our future and came up with the idea of a break. It felt scary but it was the best decision this band has ever made. We’re starting our UK + Ireland tour next week with @lacunacoil & playing the Final Emotions Tour in Finland after that with packed clubs all around the country. I recommend to get your tickets right now if you wanna see us. Finnish national broadcasting company Yle has followed us for the past 2 years non stop. The TV documentary ’After Dark Side’ will be broadcasted on TV2 in December 2024. ”Mikään ei kestä ikuisesti, ei edes Oulun pojan erektio.” - V. Laihiala 2005. This is not the end my friends. Kippis ja kulaus. Nähdään helvetissä!

[forsoobado137]

if frager existed in your universe what would it be like? frankly i want to know like the reaction of the world, of the EU, of europe in general. and also of like the other nations (kinda feel like arthur would either be chill or slightly jealous)

Well first of all, literally nobody would be surprised. France and Germany are already very close, and France has always been hinting at a romance. Sure a lot of people would be happy about the couple, but there aren't a lot of jaws dropping to the floor. The coverage of them would definitely increase. Like imagine paparazzi trying to get exclusive photos of them kissing and stuff.

The EU is happy about the relationship making them look more connected, but they probably try to limit the amount of PDA France is doing. And the other nations are hoping the relationship will make Germany less strict during meetings.

I guess the only people that would be shocked are homophobes/bigots who have deluded themselves into thinking That France and Germany were straight and "one of them". Cue all of them declaring that they'll leave the country and how ashamed they are of their NPs. Some will probably even double down and say their relationship is just a strong friendship that the "woke mind virus" has taken out of context.

I would say that England would be less "jealous" and more "annoyed third-wheeler witnessing a couple during their honeymoon phase". Like France is still spending time messing with him, but now half of his day are dedicated to going on and on about how amazing love is. He'll be mid argument with England, and then start gushing non-stop at a text from Germany about dinner reservations.

[sotomato06]

Leaving the US?

Following the events of last night, its likely a lot of you want to leave the United States. I don't blame you and can't say I haven't entertained the same thoughts. So I complied this list of the easiest countries to move to from the United States, and the pros and cons of each nation

Mexico

Mexico is close to the United States, not requiring a flight to get there (though it is recommended if within your price range) The nation allows residency of US citizens for up to 180 days without a visa or permit, allowing plenty of time to apply for the temporary residency visa which is normally valid for 4-5 years. After 5 years of residency, you can apply for permanent citizenship. https://consulmex.sre.gob.mx/leamington/index.php/non-mexicans/visas/115-temporary-resident-visa

Mexico has a much lower cost of living than the USA, with the average Mexican spending around $1000 usd or MEX$20151.55 mxn. Jobs do pay lower, but the cost of living still works out lower than in the United States and the work environment in Mexico is known to be more healthy. Along with the great weather (and food) Mexico is a good choice for Americans trying to escape the country.

 Claudia Sheinbaum, the current president of Mexico was recently sworn in and is a strong advocate for women's rights. She has fought for Abortion rights in Mexico, along with other reproductive rights. She is also a Champion of LGBTQ+ rights and has been fighting to help queer people in Mexico for the majority of her career. She is expanding Mexican welfare and is an environmental advocate. Same-Sex Marriage has been fully legal in Mexico since 2021 and Abortion is not criminalized and preformed in almost all Mexican states. For more information, I suggest the Wikipedia article on Abortion in Mexico, as it is a complicated subject. Although currently, it is ranked around the same as the USA on access across the whole country, Mexican Abortion legislation is moving in the opposite direction to the United State's, as according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, once all of the Mexican states properly reform their laws to comply with the 2023 court ruling, Mexico will be a rank one on Abortion laws, or Abortion available everywhere on request which is expected to be soon. Changing one's legal name and gender is protected under Mexican laws, and the majority of states have anti discrimination laws in place. One state even allows one to change their gender to something other than male or female, recognizing non-binary identities legally.

Portugal

Portugal is a good option for those who have funds to put into leaving. Portugal offers a program for a Golden Visa which can be obtained through owning a certain amount of real estate although there are other ways. This Visa offers the chance at citizenship after holding for only 5 years. https://getgoldenvisa.com/portugal-golden-visa-program

Portugal offers a lot of benefits for retirees as well, so if your grandma also wants to flee the country, Portugal may be the country for her. The weather is good and it is known to be incredibly peaceful and pretty.

Portugal is also in the European Union, meaning citizenship here also means EU citizenship and access to the whole Schengen Zone, allowing a lot of opportunity for education and location, as you don't have to obtain another citizenship to move to another EU nation. Abortion is legal in Portugal as is Same-Sex Marriage and both are protected under the laws of the EU. Trans rights are also protected and a trans person is allowed to change their legal gender without a medical diagnosis.

Ecuador

Ecuador is another option that is good if you aren't looking to leave the Americas. Ecuador allows visa free residency for up to 90 days and grant Permanent resident visas after only 21 months of living with a temporary visa. There are many temporary visa options including an investment one similar to Portugal's and a retiree option. Another option would be the Professional Visa, although that one is more likely to be granted if you have a job lined up and a university degree, it is the only one that does not require a lot of money. Get in touch with an Ecuador embassy here https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/consularnotification/ConsularNotificationandAccess/Ecuador.html

Ecuador also has a lower cost of living compared to the United States and the English language and dollar are often used in the country. The weather in Ecuador is an incredibly good feature of the nation as well.

Ecuador does not allow abortion upon request, but they do allow it to save the life of the mother or for other extreme cases involving rape. There are multiple organizations working to change this however and extend these rights to be more like those of Mexico or Argentina. Same-Sex marriage is protected in Ecuador as of 2019 and transgender people are able to change their legal gender without needing to go through gender affirming surgery.

Spain

Spain has an education based program where citizens of Canada and the United States are granted temporary visa's to come and teach English in the nation. You are compensated and only expected to work for 12-16 hours a week. Under this visa, you can find other work and apply for a more permanent professional Visa, which only have to be renewed every few years and leads you on the path to permanent residency. https://www.educacionfpydeportes.gob.es/eeuu/convocatorias-programas/convocatorias-eeuu/nalcap.html

Spain is also a member of the EU and residency here allows access to the Schengen zone of Europe as well. Spain has abortion on request up to 14 weeks and allows emergency abortions when the mother's life could be at risk even after that. Spain also allows same-sex marriage and has trans protection laws in place, with somebody over 16 allowed to change their legal gender, no parent, judge or doctor involved. Spain also has a very relaxed work culture with the maximum allowed work hours a week being 40 and the average worked being 36.

South Korea

South Korea has a very similar program to Spain, where you can live there for up to a year and teach English, although the South Korean program often requires a bachelors degree. Following the stay with the temporary teaching visa, you could apply for a more permanent option. A "resident visa" in South Korea is typically referred to as an "F-5 visa", which signifies a permanent residency permit, allowing foreigners to live and work in the country indefinitely; to qualify, you must meet certain criteria like significant investment in a Korean business, marriage to a Korean citizen, or a long-term stay with exceptional skills in a specific field.  https://www.internations.org/south-korea-expats/guide/visas-work-permits

As of 2021, Abortion is fully legal in the nation and is available upon request, although due to the nature in which it was legalized it is a bit iffy. I would recommend reading further into it. However, although Homosexuality is not criminalized in the country, South Korea has no official recognition of any sort of Marriage or civil unions between same-sex couples and they often face discrimination. So if you are in a same sex relationship, South Korea may not be the place for you.

Australia

Australia is one of the easiest nations for Americans to live in under a temporary Visa, as they have a program called the working holiday program and you can live there up to 3 years under it. However, this program does not lead to permanent residency and you would have to apply for another visa, either a work or family, to move there permanently. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/permanent-resident

Australia allows abortion up to 23 weeks upon request, although specifics do vary between states. Queer rights in Australia rank among the highest in the world, as marriage has been fully legalized since 2017 and they are also a world leader in trans rights. All Australian states allow the changing of one's gender legally and support gender affirming care. Non-discriminations laws are also present in all the states.

Canada

Canada allows American citizens to stay in their country for up to 6 months visa free, although they are not allowed to work without any sort of visa. The easiest way to gain Canadian residency is though the express visa system. This immigration program targets skilled workers than can contribute to three economic fields in Canada. Canadian citizenship is available after five years of residency. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/works.html

Cost of living in Canada is slightly higher than in the US, but the benefits are greater with more affordable education and universal healthcare.

Canada is known as one of the best nations for LGBTQ+ people. It was the third nation in the world to legalize same sex marriage. Since June 2017, all places within Canada explicitly within the Canadian Human Rights Act, equal opportunity and/or anti-discrimination legislation prohibit discrimination against gender identity or gender identity or expression. This includes trans rights, who are protected under Canadian law. Abortion is publicly funded and available throughout the entire nation in Canada.

If you live in a red state and aren't interested in leaving the country, but don't want to stay where you are, here's some stats that may help make your decision on where to move to;

States with no abolition ban:

Washington DC, New Jersey, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, Alaska

Best states for LGBTQ+ individuals:

New York, Oregon, Minnesota, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, Washington DC

Hope this helps whoever may need it.

[anarchistka]

Israel’s war on Palestinian territory is an atrocity. And illegal Israeli settlers should be stopped and convoyed back to Israel by Israeli law enforcement. And sure, the creation of Israel itself was a debatable project from the start and mass migration is known to bear potential for violent conflicts.

But the type of pro Palestinian activism I’ve observed (in North America and Europe esp.) rises so many questions:

[some examples that came to my mind I wrote down below, I would be seriously grateful for a detailed informative answer]

- Where should Israelis go?

- How tf is beating up Jewish students and painting graffiti on synagogues in Europe and America going to save any Palestinian civilians?

- Why is Jewish nationalism bad but Arabic nationalism is great?

- Are people who are not native to a land allowed to live there? What does it mean to be native to a land? Does indigenousity expire?

- (directed at European far left) Why should the EU integrate and support every refugee but Jewish refugees to Palestine should be expelled and are treated solely as inherently evil oppressors and their reasons to seek refuge in Palestine/Israel are ridiculed and dismissed? Of course Israel plays the role of an oppressor now but Palestinian fear of population replacement was a cause for unrest in the British Mandate in Palestine. This led to immigration stops for Jews who were fleeing the Holocaust. So at that time a fear that is usually associated with right wing politics cost additional Jewish lives. Why is right wing racial nationalism agreeable when non Europeans are doing it? Why do you oppose Jewish right wing nationalism by supporting Arab right wing nationalism?

- Why do you call Israel a colony? A colony of which country is it supposed to be? Of the US? (Illegal settlements are an exception, they are definitely colonies [of Israel] )

- If Israel, because it is a colony (?), should be eradicated, shouldn’t we also eradicate the USA, Canada, Brazil etc.? Where should the colonisers go? Or has the colonial status of these countries expired? Or were the reasons for the colonisation of these countries somehow more legitimate and righteous than the creation of Israel? Wtf

- Why do you dismiss the great cultural similarities between Europe and the Middle East? Why do you portray Palestinians as the noble but primitive barbarian when the Middle East is a highly developed region that has close cultural ties with Europe (even if often by war)? Besides : Arabs are capable of doing good and doing evil as well as everyone else. Palestinians and Israeli Jews know each other, they can learn each other’s language, they are familiar with the other’s religion, they literally stand on the same cultural foundation, and they use similar weapons and technological devices…

- What should Israel do when Israeli civilians are attacked by militant extremists from Palestine? What would the ideal response be?

- Why are Jews suddenly accepted as being “white” once this identity label has become a disadvantage (according to CSJ conspiracy theories)? Over six million Jews have been killed because they were considered inferior.

- What should an Israeli do to not be considered an evil oppressive genocidal colonist? How can an Israeli meaningfully contribute to a better peaceful future?

- Why is Palestinian violence framed as trauma response and Israeli violence is seen as demonic evil that is inherent to Israeli Jews?

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form:

What would happen to the richest countries in the world these days because they export oil when my story takes place in 2400 and and the oil is all gone and these countries are where my story actually takes place. Where all the money is now is pretty much the countries that produce cutting edge technology.

Licorice: 2400 CE is 376 years in the future. 

Which countries were the richest 376 years ago?  That would take us back to 1648. The richest country in the world was China, with India not far behind. The Ottoman Empire was another superpower, and most of today’s Middle Eastern oil states were its posessions. The USA didn’t even exist. The British had barely begun building their empire; the Netherlands and France were both far richer and more powerful than GB, but the European powerhouse was Spain with its Latin American colonial empire pumping out seemingly inexhaustible supplies of silver and gold bullion, inspiring a golden age of piracy in the Caribbean. 

China, India, France: their wealth was based mostly on strong diverse domestic economies. 

Britain, Portugal and the Netherlands: they were too small and poor to build a China-type self-sufficient diverse economy. They grew rich on trade.

Ottoman Empire: a multicultural melting pot covering roughly the same geographic area as the Eastern Roman Empire, the Ottomans had it all. But they fell behind in the 19th century, and the empire was torn apart by the waves of nationalism that swept across the globe after the French Revolution. The Ottoman Empire no longer exists.

Spain grew rich in the same way the oil economies grew rich, by mining a single commodity and using it to pay for everything

A country like the USA is going to be as fine as anywhere can be after the oil is gone. Like China, India and the EU they will diversify into renewable resources and keep right on truckin’ because their economies are sufficiently wealthy and diverse, their population sufficiently  educated, and their governments sufficiently forward thinking to do this. 

Back in the 18th century, the measly little island of Britain took the wealth it earned from trade to invest in R&D, invented the industrial revolution, and used its tech advantage to conquer an empire the likes of which had never hitherto been seen. 

Spain, on the other hand, didn’t invest in itself. The gold and silver from the Spanish Main trickled through its fingers the way easy money always does with lottery winners. Much of the bullion ended up in China via British, Dutch, and Portuguese ships. Spain’s empire disintegrated in the 19th century.

In short, if you’re a country with a booming economy dependent on a single non-renewable commodity, and you are smart, you will use that wealth to build your competitive advantage in diverse areas of human economic activity. You will educate your population to be creative and entrepreneurial. This is more likely to happen if your government is some flavour of democracy.

If you’re not smart or if your government is controlled by a small clique of aristocrats or a dictator and his court with no accountability to the future, your elite will simply take most of the wealth for themselves, stick it into Swiss bank accounts, and leave the country impoverished and under-developed when they flee the inevitable coup. 

Since the history of the years 2024-2400 hasn’t yet been written, it’s up to you to decide what the countries in your story are going to do. All of them are well aware that the oil bonanza will not last forever. You might find this useful: “How the Gulf Region is Planning for Life After Oil”. 

So, which of your countries will be smart and which will be foolish? Which ones will have the foresight to build a viable post-oil future for themselves, and which ones will slide backwards into poverty, ignorance, and oppression? You decide. 

[mapsontheweb]

Percentage of Non-European births, 2020.

Eurostat didn't include Roma people as a European white.

by dalmatian.mapper

Fact check from @freekicks:

In a comment on the original instagram post, the OP said they got their information from France’s national statistics bureau, INSEE. However, INSEE doesn’t collect any statistics about “white” or “non-white” births, nor about “European” or “Non-European” births. Its data only has three categories: children born to French-born parents, EU-born parents, and parents born outside the EU. (You can see the statistics for 2020, the year purportedly depicted in the map, here.)

If OP classified all births to parents who were born outside the EU as “non-European,” that would mean, for example, that a child born to a French mother and a Swiss dad would count as “non-white” on his map. Meanwhile, INSEE’s “French-born” metric also includes parents born in France’s overseas collectives in the Caribbean, South America, and the Indian and Pacific Oceans — most of whom are not white.

Furthermore, the math still doesn’t work: in 2020, the percentage of babies born in France with at least one non-EU parent was 28.7%, not 35%.

Overall, this sloppy analysis falsely overstates the growth of the non-white population in France. These types of inflammatory and incorrect statistics fuel racist conspiracy theories about France and Europe as a whole being “flooded” with nonwhite immigrants who are out-reproducing Europeans and causing crime and other social ills.

[neechees]

This isn't supposed to be a gotcha, I'm genuinely asking because my dad keeps using this as an argument when I try to explain land back stuff to him. And I'm hoping you can help give tips on how to explain it to him.

We're European, and as you probably know there's people here who are anti-immigrant / anti-refugee bc they're racist and want it to be only Europeans. My dad thankfully isn't *that* bad, but his argument is "well if indigenous ppl deserve their land back, even despite all the non-natives who moved there bc they had to, then don't the anti-immigrant EU ppl have the right to kick out the immigrants even if they fled to here as refugees?"

It's so gross and i don't blame you if you don't want to engage with it/answer this anon. I just am like trying to figure out how to answer him and of all the progressive issues I explain to my dad this is the one I'm least familiar with. So how do I explain to him why it doesn't really apply to indigenous Europeans?

I can't tell what you mean when you say "Indigenous Europeans", because Indigenous is a racialized and political category of people that have been affected and racialized by colonialism in a specific way, "Indigenous" doesn't just mean "x group of people who originally come from x area". Because you haven't specific a specific Indigenous Nation (for example, Saami), I'm going to assume you just mean that you are White Europeans who are not Indigenous. You'll have to explain that to him as well. This is also important, because I know many racist Europeans will co-opt Indigeneity in order to promote White Supremacist ideas like creating an ethnostate, and what your dad has suggested, is the definition of that. Secondly, tell him (even if you ARE Indigenous,) Indigenous people, as the same with anyone else, being xenophobic and racist towards immigrants is still bad and unacceptable, we don't get a free pass to be bigoted towards different groups of people and use "landback" as an excuse. Landback goes hand in hand with decolonizing, and you can't do that while perpetrating settler-colonial ideology and bigotry.

I don't know how many times we have to say this, but Landback does not inherently have to do with deporting anybody who isn't "Indigenous", and does not have anything to do with trying to create an ethnostate, the core goals of Landback is neither of those things. You have to emphasize this to him.

Landback has to do with sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples because as it is, we're being oppressed by the White governments that are occupying us. We are stripped of multiple rights while in our own homes. What your dad has suggested about White Europeans having the "right" to deport immigrants is already a reality, White Europeans already have privilege and power over immigrants, and many immigrants already ARE being deported and mistreated by those governments. There are race riots targeting immigrants happening in the U.K for goodness sake!

Landback is centered ideas of decolonizing and dismantling White Supremacy: Your dad's presented idea of mass deportation of any person who isn't ehtnically/racially European or is an (immigrant to there) from the country you reside in is based on White Supremacy. The category "immigrant" itself is very racialized, because when White North Americans or Europeans talk about deporting "immigrants" from the country, typically they're talking about Brown and Black people & people who aren't Christian, and I've never heard a White Canadian complain about a White French immigrant and suggest we deport them, or hear a White American complain about deporting the Irish.

As an example, trying to kick everyone else out of Turtle Island (or anywhere) for one thing would be WAAAAY too much of a hassle to even attempt, too expensive, and useless. Plus, if there was a mass exodus (for lack of a better word) of people via planes, vehicles, and ships all at once or even over time, that would have a big negative impact on the environment, which kind of goes against why people want Landback in the first place (to take care of the land and environment, we care about it). It's counterproductive to several of the goals of Landback.

So to recap, deporting any people who are not "Indigenous" or originally from one area is not the goal, your dad has made a false equivalency because 1

that's not what we want in the first place, Landback has nothing inherently to do with deporting anyone who isn't originally from a specific area or creating an ethnostate, and

trying to do it would be useless and going AGAINST the goals and principles of Landback and what is wanted

part of Landback is undoing racism and White Supremacy, and what he's suggested is promoting those things (White Supremacy and racism)

[theology101]

People need to stop Bitching About Fallout Retconning Lore

I'm going to be honest - I'm sad Shady Sands, a town i have saved multiple times, and a fictional Nation I have helped build, is gone. I'm also sad that NV is now probably non-canonical.

But so the fuck what?

This is just SO "baby's first media franchise" to me.

Guess what? New Vegas was a one off deal when Bethesda, a Corporation who owns total rights to the Fallout Franchise, allowed another Company to use their IP. Not only that, but basically just... gave their ENTIRE Engine, Code, and DevNotes for Fallout 3 and said 'go nuts, we know how much you love fallout.'

That is such a wildly unprecedented move. I literally can't think of anything similar beyond Sony and Disney agreeing to split Spider-Man but even THAT is different because they share publishing rights to the Same Character, but only in different mediums. Imagine DC just... letting Image Comics publish canonical stories about Batman because Bob Kane happened to be working there at the moment.

It was a great, lightning in the bottle experience, that now exists in its own continuity. Now let's move on.

This is SO common in media and storytelling, especially with these massive franchises with decades of lore and baggage they carry around. It's why DC has a reboot every six years (and why marvel comics needs to lowkey), and why Disney scrapped the Star Wars EU. No one likes having to work off of someone else's script or outline - people want to make their own thing with their own take and influence.

New Vegas is also... still a video game you can play? Todd Howard didn't go into all your houses and shoot your copy. Your computer and xboxes haven't been purged. New Vegas still exists - it just won't influence anything going forward.

Big, fucking deal.

There is so much shit in the world right now that just sucks, thats sad and is an absolute bummer. Fallout has always taken that bummer world, cranked the bummer and the fun up to 30 and let it go wild. The very unique vibe and energy of the Fallout Show feels like it came DIRECTLY from the games!

When Lucy walked into Filly, I felt like how I did the first time I stepped into Shaddy Sands and Megaton. Cutting off the head of a person you sorta know and just... doing it? because its easier to carry? Finding a vault, immediately getting sidetracked by whatever weird shit they have going on, then leaving with a 'Huh.'

It's just SO Fallout.

Be Happy that you're getting new, genuinely interesting and engaging content, be sad that the content you love won't be going forward but take solace that you still have it. And don't fucking rage post about it on every single social media for christs sake.

Just have fun.

[mariacallous]

In this 2024 “super election year,” a common concern across Europe and the United States has been the growing popularity and electoral successes of far-right movements and narratives. Though right-wing parties exhibit clear distinctions in different countries, they echo each other strongly in their nationalist orientation, their softness on Russia—and skepticism toward support for Ukraine—and their harsh anti-immigration stance. In the European Union (EU), one election after another has demonstrated the centrality of irregular migration and border security in public discussions and forced mainstream parties to take more restrictive approaches to calm fear and anxiety fueled by xenophobic, far-right rhetoric. The conflation between regular and irregular migration has also severely distorted the debate.

The results of the European Parliament election, France’s snap election, three German state elections, and the Austrian election all showed a strong rightward drift and signaled voters’ distrust in their national governments, confirming the notable shift in tone on migration in Europe toward a more securitized, hardline approach, even among mainstream parties. A look at the numbers indeed reveals a challenging situation as the European Union faces its highest number of asylum applications since 2016, which is straining resources for processing, accommodation, service provision, and thus integration.

In the aftermath of Europe’s so-called “refugee crisis” or “migrant crisis,” which began in 2015, EU member states tried and failed repeatedly to rethink and renew the union’s common policy, until a breakthrough this summer concluded the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. In the interim years, however, national governments made separate plans, implementing ad hoc measures to fortify their borders, restricting access to their asylum systems, and negotiating deals with non-EU states to limit movement.

This patchwork of policies did little to deter an increasing number of displaced persons worldwide from heading toward Europe in search of safety. It did, however, create divisions within and between member states, thus impeding progress on effective EU-wide responses. This political incoherence, together with fluctuating irregular arrivals, has since been exploited by populist parties, who propagate the sense that governments have lost control over their sovereignty and can no longer protect their populations.

To provide a better understanding of the complex situation Europe finds itself in today, this explainer aims to clarify the EU’s role in migration and asylum policy, why the issue became so controversial, how to understand recent developments in the migration space, and what opportunities the new pact offers.

How does migration and asylum policy in Europe work?

The free movement of goods, services, capital, and persons has been a fundamental pillar of the European idea, as enshrined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome that founded the political and economic community that today constitutes the European Union. Within the EU, national borders became almost fully invisible with the creation of the Schengen Area in 1995, which today includes 25 EU member states and four non-EU countries, collectively home to more than 450 million people.

When it comes to regular migration, the law stipulates that the EU has the authority to establish the conditions for entry and legal residence in member states, “including for family-reunification purposes, applicable to nationals of non-EU countries. Member States retain the right to set quotas for admitting individuals from non-EU countries seeking employment.” The fight against irregular immigration requires the EU to implement “an effective returns policy, in a manner consistent with fundamental rights.”

The EU’s Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was established in 1999 to enhance coordination across member states and streamline systems for processing asylum claims and supporting refugees granted protection. More specifically, the “Dublin Regulation” governs relations among member states and manifests that the country of an individual’s first arrival in the EU is responsible for asylum processing and refugee reception. For years, the Schengen regulation of free movement has made the Dublin system difficult to administer, as it unintentionally permitted asylum seekers to self-select destination countries—often based on linguistic abilities, families, perceived hospitality, and benefits. It has also placed disproportionate obligations on EU border countries at the forefront of irregular movements to Europe, particularly in the Mediterranean (Greece, Italy, and Spain) and the Balkans (Hungary, Croatia, and Bulgaria). Finally, a lack of enforcement to relocate applicants in instances of violation has sustained pressure on more “popular” destination countries and undermined authorities’ credibility.

Before this year’s overhaul of common EU policy, as reflected in the agreement on the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum—more on that below—member states at the national level and EU leadership implemented incremental measures to deter irregular arrivals. While some actions temporarily led to decreases in arrivals in certain member states, however, they failed to address the underlying drivers of displacement.

Most notable have been a series of EU deals with third countries in Europe’s neighborhood to improve border management and halt irregular departures toward the EU, in exchange for the provision of financial support. A 2016 agreement with Turkey became a model for future EU deals with North African and Middle Eastern countries, including Lebanon, Egypt, Mauritania, and Tunisia. Italy, on its own, concluded a memorandum of understanding with Libya in 2017, which pledged millions of euros in assistance to enhance the maritime surveillance capacities of the Libyan Coast Guard. In exchange, Libyan authorities would prevent people from departing the Northern African country and intercept irregular migrants at sea to return and detain them in Libya. Yet these “migration partnerships” have been severely criticized by humanitarian groups and lawmakers alike, who express concerns about how the policy legitimizes and increases Europe’s dependency on autocratic regimes, disregards human rights, and threatens migrants’ physical safety. A recent investigative report by The Washington Post and Lighthouse Reports further revealed that local authorities, aided by EU funding and equipment, have violated human rights and asylum law. Several research studies have further criticized the migration deals’ lack of effectiveness.

Why is migration so controversial?

When over 1.2 million people entered the EU in 2015 to claim asylum under international law, most of whom were Syrian refugees fleeing civil war, the CEAS and the Dublin Regulation quickly proved dysfunctional and ineffective in absorbing the shock to European processing and integration systems. The situation sparked tensions among frontline countries—which were challenged by the arrival of 1,216,860 and 1,166,815 asylum seekers at their borders in 2015 and 2016, respectively—and countries further inward, which in many cases resisted migrant transfers to share responsibility and restricted access to their asylum systems under fear of adverse domestic consequences. Municipalities in major destination countries were overwhelmed by the speed and scale of arrivals and faced difficulties mustering enough resources for housing, financial support, and integration of newcomers in their local communities.

Despite agreements by the European Council to relocate up to 160,000 asylum seekers from frontline countries Italy and Greece to other member states to reduce pressures on the Italian and Greek asylum systems, fewer than 12,000 relocations were realized by the end of 2016. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, for instance, refused orders from Brussels to take in 1,294 asylum seekers and instead organized a national referendum on whether the EU should have the authority to “mandate the obligatory resettlement of non-Hungarian citizens into Hungary,” which he used to validate his harsh domestic anti-immigrant approach. Stoking fears of a Muslim “invasion” and claiming his country was the “last Christian-conservative bastion of the Western world,” Orbán’s approach also included the construction of fences at Hungary’s southern borders, changing asylum laws to speed up processing and reduce protections, and introducing “transit zones” at Hungary’s border with Serbia, which have been condemned as “container prisons” surrounded by barbed wires.

In stark contrast, German Chancellor Angela Merkel valiantly declared “Wir schaffen das!” (“We can do it!”) and decided to keep her country’s borders open, leading to the arrival of around 1.2 million asylum seekers in Germany between 2015 and 2016. The real pressure on municipalities and the sense of chaos and disorder, however, benefitted the far-right populist Alternative for Germany (AfD), which entered the federal parliament for the first time in 2017 and became the largest opposition party.

Over the years, asylum seekers have become convenient scapegoats for disillusioned and frustrated Europeans who have seen their societies change and economies tumble because of successive external shocks, from climate change and a global health crisis to rapid technological change and a disruption of Europe��s decades-old security order. In this time of great uncertainty, a rights-based vision of migration and asylum has become a perceived political vulnerability, replaced with a security approach stressing law and order.

In a 2021 effort led by Marine Le Pen, the head of France’s National Rally party, 16 right-wing parties from across Europe—including the governing parties of Hungary, Italy, and Poland at the time—declared their opposition to a “European Superstate” allegedly being created by “radical forces” within the EU. They objected to a perceived “cultural, religious transformation and ultimately nationless construction of Europe” and instead pressed for “respect for the culture and history of European states” and “respect for Europe’s Judeo-Christian heritage.” Uniting diverse national political actors, their communique demonstrates the focus on national identity and Christian values that the far right has portrayed as being under threat because of the EU’s migration policy. Hence, the EU finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place: its policy is weaponized by right-wing populists as too weak, and it is denounced by nongovernmental organizations and observers as not respecting its own values.

How does the new Pact on Migration and Asylum address prior shortcomings?

A sound European policy that attempts to better manage the drivers of irregular migration in countries of origin and centers on the collaboration of all EU member states is needed to handle rising global displacement trends. The passage of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum in May 2024 offers a chance to transform the EU’s current governing framework if implemented effectively by the time the new legislation takes force in 2026. It represents the first major agreement on migration and asylum policy in over a decade, intended to accelerate procedures and enhance cooperation and solidarity between member states.

Framed by the European Commission as a “fair and firm” approach, the new legislation consists of 10 major reform proposals that cement Europe’s policy shift to fortify borders, enhance scrutiny in asylum processing, double down on deporting rejected applicants, and partner with non-EU states of origin and transit to limit irregular arrivals. A key aspect is a new accelerated procedure for asylum applicants from countries with a low recognition rate, whose probability of getting their asylum application request granted is low. The mechanism will take a maximum of 12 weeks (about three months) and permits fast-track processing at EU external borders, during which migrants, including families and children, will stay in collective detention-like facilities. Further, the pact aims to correct the failures of the Dublin Regulation through a new solidarity system, which obliges all member states to share responsibility, either by receiving up to 30,000 asylum applicants per year, paying a fee of 20,000 euros per asylum applicant to assist hosting countries or contributing other resources.

Critics have pointed out, however, that the focus on securitizing EU borders as opposed to addressing humanitarian implications is unlikely to reduce arrival numbers and increases the risks of human rights violations. The European Union must satisfy its obligations under international law to ensure fast-track processing facilities satisfy human rights standards and that all asylum claims are evaluated fairly, as required by the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. These principles should apply equally to EU-funded migration management projects in Europe’s neighborhood.

As the European Union enters a new governing cycle—following the European Parliament election in June and with a new college of commissioners later this fall—it has an opportunity to prioritize a new common migration and asylum policy and take functional steps to achieve a more balanced and orderly system among member states, which provides for the dignity, safety, and rights of those seeking international protection. The number of displaced people globally has increased consistently over the past 12 years and is expected to have exceeded 120 million persons in 2024. However, it is imperative to remember that 75% of displaced persons remain in low- and middle-income countries in the “Global South,” which often struggle with political, economic, and social insecurity themselves. As war continues in Ukraine, conflicts escalate in the Middle East, political instability grows across sub-Saharan Africa, and the secondary effects of climate change jeopardize people’s lives and livelihoods, the EU will be forced to grapple with irregular migration for the foreseeable future.

The nationalities of first-time asylum applicants in the European Union in recent years demonstrate the global nature of migration today. In 2023, for instance, Syrians (183,250), Afghans (100,985), Turks (89,985), Venezuelans (67,085), and Colombians (62,015) represented the five largest nationalities among first-time asylum applicants in the EU. Certainly, contemporary migration flows to Europe are mixed and not all persons applying for asylum fall into the protected categories of the Geneva Convention.

It is also true, however, that many EU countries are changing demographically as birth rates fall across developed economies and are experiencing severe shortages of workers across professional and blue-collar sectors, threatening future social and economic vitality and stability. Immigration, therefore, offers an enormous benefit for Europe to counteract downward demographic and economic trends. Beyond the pact, leaders should dedicate greater efforts to expand legal pathways at the national level for people not considered refugees under international law, but who desperately seek greater economic opportunity and are eager to contribute meaningfully to host societies.

Recent political developments in the European migration space

The yearslong EU effort to agree to a set of clear, cohesive policies as represented by the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, however, appears to be undercut by a recent shift in tone on migration across the bloc. National, xenophobic rhetoric is no longer contained to the fringes of the political spectrum across the European Union. Anti-immigrant sentiment today features dominantly in public debates, after years of far-right populists amplifying cultural anxieties and accusing governments of having lost control of their sovereign borders. Right-wing leaders, from Hungary’s “illiberal democrat” Viktor Orbán to Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, whose Brothers of Italy party has its roots in a 20th-century fascist movement, have increasingly shaped the direction at the EU level toward a more restrictive approach focused on border security and a defense of European culture and values.  

Recent electoral outcomes across the EU revealing strong support for far-right parties have sent shockwaves across the continent. Following June’s European Parliament election, parties to the right of the European People’s Party—the center-right Christian Democrats—now hold over one-quarter of seats in the EU’s lower legislature (187 out of 720). The vote produced a snap election in France, from which a center-left coalition barely emerged ahead of the far right. In Germany, the extremist AfD emerged from the European vote as the second strongest party, ahead of all three governing coalition parties. In three recent regional elections in eastern Germany, the AfD and the Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht—a new party on the extreme left founded in January 2024 that has also adopted a harsh anti-immigration stance—fanned the flames of fear and xenophobia and soared to a combined 42%-49%, both landing among the top three strongest parties in each state. Finally, Austria’s September election saw the far-right Freedom Party become as the strongest new parliamentary grouping, whose campaign included promises of “remigration” as part of a larger theme to create a “Fortress Austria.”

In response to these volatile political trends, member states—including many led by centrist governments—are once again turning to reactive, unilateral measures to contain the far right by way of a more restrictive stance on migration and asylum.

Most notably, Germany’s center-left government has drastically shifted its tone on combating irregular migration and enhancing domestic security after two fatal knife assaults occurred in Germany this summer, whose perpetrators turned out to be foreign nationals. In a stark break with Merkel’s hopeful and humanitarian spirit, the government expanded temporary controls to include all German borders—defying the Schengen regulation—imposed stricter rules on benefits and protected status for asylum seekers, and even began deportations of convicted Afghans to Afghanistan. Not only are these actions inconsistent with the principle of EU solidarity and grounds for heightened tensions with Germany’s neighbors, but the German police union has deemed the border checks largely ineffective, particularly as people claiming asylum can still enter.

Emboldened by the German turn on the issue, Orbán most recently threatened to send buses of migrants to Brussels—copying his conservative MAGA friends in the United States. The new French government, led by Prime Minister Michel Barnier, has also vowed to crack down on irregular entries and strengthen controls at France’s borders. In Poland, Prime Minister and former President of the European Council Donald Tusk announced a temporary suspension of the right to seek asylum for irregular migrants entering through the Polish-Belarusian border, claiming that Russia and Belarus were “weaponizing” migrants in attempts to destabilize the EU. The policy could violate the right to non-refoulement—which protects individuals from being returned to a country under international human rights law—and set a perilous precedent for other member states trying to restrict irregular entries.

In a novel move, Meloni concluded a new “partnership” with Albania—a non-EU country—under which Italy will send up to 36,000 asylum applicants per year to process their claims externally. Though the policy only applies to adult male individuals intercepted in international waters prior to arrival at Italian shores, several attempted transfers of migrants to Albanian processing centers have already been invalidated by an Italian court. Together with six other EU countries, Meloni has also tried to advance normalization with the Assad regime in Syria, in part to reconsider the possibility of returning Syrian refugees to the war-torn country.

At the October 2024 European Council summit, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Charles Michel, and leaders of EU member states gathered to discuss a full agenda of topics in which migration featured prominently. In a letter setting the tone for the summit, von der Leyen stressed to European leaders the centrality of expanding third-country partnerships like those concluded with Turkey and countries in North Africa and the Middle East, to improve processes of return and counter the “weaponization” of migrants by Russia, Belarus, and others attempting to instigate political instability in Europe. During the meetings, the agreement between Italy and Albania was lauded as a model for the EU to emulate, confirming the shift toward externalization that has gained traction in Europe.

Notably absent from the summit communique was any mention of the new common EU Pact on Migration and Asylum or strategies for its timely and comprehensive implementation. The recent uncoordinated measures by EU members and their preoccupation with “weaponization,” third-country deals, and “return hubs” at the EU level are unlikely to provide the sense of reassurance, cohesion, and opportunity that people expect of their national and European leaders.