Politicians around the world are ratcheting up the anti-migrant rhetoric during campaigning. What do you think about this?

they are scumbags. using people's suffering to try to get themselves elected. scumbags

In many countries, majorities of the electorates have wanted less immigration. Politicians have ignored their opinions. There is now a backlash against immigration. Anti-immigration messages are resonating with many.

Sensible and controlled immigration is a good thing. It benefits the immigrants and the country. It also cuts off oxygen to the racists. Less sensible immigration can turn opinion against those who would contribute to the country, including those genuinely in need of asylum.

This is very sad.

Because it's the right thing to do.

Two reasons.

Reason number 1 : because it's easy. Human beings have been blaming outsiders for their problems since forever.

Reason number 2 : it diverts attention. While people are hating on migrants, they don't look at what's being done behind their back.

That's a loaded question, speaking of "rhetoric." The truth is, increasingly, policymakers are proposing reforms to immigration programs after the effects of failed policies, like Germany's and Sweden's, started to be broadly felt.

In the US, the administration wants less illegal immigration and stresses the importance of legal immigration.

Very, very few people are calling for no immigration, which would be practically impossible. Rather they want properly-administrated immigration.

In some countries with large migrant populations there are serious robbery and murder problems with the local inhabitants being the victims. Melbourne,Australia is an example of what is happening.

Like many things, immigration can be good or bad and everything in between.

I don't think the recent rhetoric has been anti-immigration. But rat

previous post continued.....

....rather a call to either more controlled immigration or enforcement of existing immigration laws.

Politicians go that route because its easy and a reasonably popular position but then the reality of what businesses want and in some cases genuinely need kick in, any desire to cut immigration confronts a reality. Not to mention the public sector need. Lets just say that if you had a society that had consistently high birth rates you dont need immigration to be anything like the same extent as the West and now Japan does. Thats why a country like China is desperate to boost birth rates so they dont have to get in non Chinese in future. China is Japan writ large and more rascist. The West, some would say, has been to open. I think thats too much of a generalization.

It's unfortunate that some migrant programs have a detrimental effect on the lives of the residents of the host country in that some migrants extreme religious beliefs bring them into conflict with the law enforcement authorities after they commit murderous attacks at random on members of the public. It could be that countries such as China are aware of these problems and do not want to take the risk of admitting people who may commit the same crimes there.

A lot of immigration law is very loose, or too strict. Like Japan for example, its policies is easily exploited by both the locals and the foreigners. When foreigners exploit it, the locals don't see it as the result of "incompetent government", they see it as "foreigners devils exploiting their hospitality", it causes social stress between the groups. Wanting a better immigration policy is not bigotry, it's logical.

Immigration needs to focus on quality over quantity. If you disagee, you must have many many crappy friends.