Does being anti-immigration automatically mean you are far right?

[Rum]

In Sweden the far right - The nationalist Sweden Democrats (SD) - what was not far off being a neo-Nazi party in the past - have won 18% of the vote in their elections. In Europe parties with an anti-immigration policy are doing well across the board. Clearly they are picking up votes because people are concerned about immigration.

Here is Britain one of the reasons Brexit was voted for was the perception that without consulting the public the fabric of our nation - in terms of racial mix etc. was being changed. I know quite a few people who voted for that reason, who in other respects were 'middle of the road' in their politics.

I think, certainly in Europe anyway, there is no doubt that the free movement of people around the continent has made for a much more cosmopolitan mix and I personally liked that. Here in my small city for example, you hear a variety of European languages and there are several shops catering to the like of Poles and other Eest Europeans - they sell some nice stuff too!

So - does objecting to these changes automatically make you 'of the right'? I don't think it does. It may make you reluctant to take on changes you had no say in or long for your country to be the 'way it used to be', but that doesn't make one fascist. aMaybe to avoid a real drift to the far right the mainstream parties need to address the concerns of some of the people who see no where else to cast their vote.


Th Sweden story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45466174

[Strontium Dog]

Opposition to free movement comes from right across the political spectrum, although it's more common at the extremes.

[Rum]

Opposition to free movement comes from right across the political spectrum, although it's more common at the extremes.

To some extent in the UK, but in Europe of course it is one of the founding principles of the EU.

[Sean Hayden]

They should at least acknowledge that yes, these people will lose what they've known. It's amazing to me that some continue to argue that massive immigration doesn't result in a dramatic change in culture, when obviously it does. But it does not have to be a bad change.

[Brian Peacock]

Immigrants are a handy scapegoat - and they're easily vilified because they genetslly don't get a vote. I'm more of a melting pot kind of guy.

[laklak]

Not all immigration is good, not all is bad.

[Rum]

Immigrants are a handy scapegoat - and they're easily vilified because they genetslly don't get a vote. I'm more of a melting pot kind of guy.

I am too as it happens but I think it is more than scapegoating. I think there is an identity issue too, Being ‘British’ and Asian for example (Indian sub continentals for the Americans) took three generations to become part of the fabric of the country. I think the arrival of so many Europeans was a genuine shock in some subtle cultural way connected to identity. To dismiss it as fascism or scapegoating plays into the hands of the far right I think.

[Seabass]

Don't know about far-right, but it does make you a big sissy, and fear of "other" is one of the defining characteristics of conservatism.

Then again, how do we define "anti-immigration"? I don't consider someone who recognizes that not every country can realistically be expected to take every refugee to be anti-immigrant. But these red-hatted, "build the wall" chanting motherfuckers are definitely anti-immigrant.

[JimC]

In Oz, there is a reasonable argument for some restriction on immigrant numbers (to me, the current average intake is about right, but I wouldn't want it higher) because of limited water, and the effects of a growing population on a fragile environment. This, of course, should not involve any racial discrimination...