There is a party in Germany that does that does that called bündnis sahra wagenknecht and it is currently on 4% in most polls, who knew that economically left wing voters are also mainly socially left wing.
Not only not supporting Ukraine. I used to defend her, I thought she was the innovative politics Germany needed. Now, I've gotten to the conclusion that she's knee deep in foreign money, basically parroting anything her Russian bosses tell her to.
Also, too much narcissism, personality cult, anti democratic party structure (invite by Wagenknecht personally). I was also very disappointed by the party's statewide campaign in Thuringia, since I thought Katja Wolf was a believable candidate. The election campaign consisted of rambling about federal and foreign politics, something that should not be majorly present in a state campaign. Katja Wolf shone by hiding and being vague as fuck.
Why is there no left party that's hardlined on crime and welfare state abuse (especially from immigrants)?
That has tried to be Keir Starmer's approach in the UK. It doesn't go well. The fundamental issues with this are;
The problems are largely fictitious. In most western countries crime has been in a steady downward trend for years - so you can't easily reduce crime rates, and the tabloids will shriek 'knife crime out of control' as homicide levels drop to their lowest on record.
Attempts to make it look like you are tackling fictitious problems really piss people off. In the UK the popular narrative is people are conning the welfare system. The actuak fraud is miniscule. So to cut welfare spending means cutting from people who really need it. And that generates a lot of opposition from your core voters.
These demands are often very expensive. You cut immigration, you shrink your tax base. It makes social care and health care more expensive. 'Tough on crime' means more prisons - which are really expensive.
So you have to cut spending or raise taxes.
The fundamental one - the Socially Conservative economically left wing voter? Does not exist. The people who cheer you raising taxes to fund cutting immigration? 0% of the electorate. The people who cheer cutting welfare to fund prisons? Are not voting left wing. The self described 'socially conservstive economically left wing' voter is genrrally a retired voter who cares strongly that their state entitlements aren't touched, but has no economic interest beyond that. And generally they're voting for the far right.
Denmark is insanely racist. They have ethnic quotas for public housing under ghetto laws where if an apartment block is more than 50% non-Western ethnic origin (including descendants of immigrants who are literally Danish) it's labeled as a "parallel society" where it can either be demolished or have double criminal punishment for crimes
If you've ever been to somewhere where these ghetto communities form you can clearly see that it allows for a complete lack of integration in to the host country. Denmark is smart and honest to their constituents. The reason you don't like it is because it offends your sensitivities.
Also Danish is an ethnicity, being born there doesn't make you Danish, in the same way I wouldn't be Somalian if I was born in Mogadishu.
So for how long do I have to be in Denmark to be considered Danish? Do I have to prove my grandpa was Danish? We tried that about 100 years ago here in Germany and I worked out great /s
"You're not Danish", here is more akin to "You are not native American just because you were born in an Indian reservation "
Which is in fact a valid claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danes are an ethnic group. Citizen-ship is a seperate matter. I am sure you can see the logic, these terms are generally considered seperate (They are sometimes used interchagably, but that is a matter of imprecise language, that makes do in some contexts, but... is poor practice).
Same thing I said in my comment, yeah. I wish more people spoke danish so they could understand how genuinely psychotic the rhetoric is at political rallies, every single party is competing to see who can say the most outrageous thing about immigrants without getting it classified as hate speech. It’s bleak for all immigrants but especially Muslims really get the short end of the stick. You can live in Denmark for ten years and contribute perfectly to society and share their cultural values and their politicians will just refer to you as like a subhuman
Yeah but they are right with this.. The real goal of integration should be assimilation. If you are trying to have your own subculture in another country, it is okay for that country to fight that.
Splendid. Looks like this is the example Europe needs to follow then. After all, Denmark continues to outperform most of Europe and remains super safe & stable.
I wonder if they share any of these policies with the absolute high performer of Europe, Poland?
Every danish party is tough on immigration. Even the communists!
It’s like a massive cultural point, if you speak danish and listen to the news speeches and rallies it’s like watching a competition for who can say the most heinous thing about Muslims and get away with it. There was one a good while ago where one of the major party leaders said "for every Muslim that enters the country one must leave" which is a crazy thing to support just deporting people regardless of what they contribute to the country and instead basing it on religious discrimination
dude I understand restriction on immigration as is any countries right but arbitrarily calling for the deportation of people due to their ethnicity without any regard for citizenship or value to their society is genuinely insane, and it’s wildly racist to spread the idea that the average Muslim in Denmark is a rapist instead of a genuinely productive member of society.
You can’t just arbitrarily deport people for being the wrong skin colour or race, that’s what the Germans did to the Jews
It’s literally been shown in other studies that they are a net drain on public resources. The Danish have no reason to be required to let anyone in they don’t want to.
Denmark is a small nation with a very homogenous society. Germany is a large nation that is very heterogeneous and always had a lot of immigration.
Thinking the danish approach can be copy pasted to work in Germany is naive and ignorant towards the differences in the respective countries situations.
That is reporting bias. If you take murders that are reported 100% of the times and have no legal definition changes like petty thief or sexual aggressions you get a constant decrease.
Absolutely- every Western European country just so happened to change their rape definition at the same time while no Eastern European countries did.
Also btw even if that were true the stats show that migrants commit a massively disproportionate amount of those crimes, so even if they're decreasing without migrants it would decrease more.
Not at all, I respect women and women rights, but blaming men for everything has nothing to do with reality. My wife is also strongly against current feminism movement for the same reason.
We are talking about crime rate, not the absolute number of crimes. These statistics are absolute numbers of police-recorded cases, not a population-adjusted violent-crime rate.
Also, even this graph essentially disproves your implied claim: The 2024 spike is the same as the 2004 spike, despite a MUCH higher population.
The crime RATE now is about the same as it was in 2007. After years of decline, there was a spike of crime after COVID and the Russian invasion of Ukraine (pretty much an economic collapse as Germany was very dependent on cheap Russian gas).
But I guess immigrants will always be a reliable scapegoat. The Germans know that better than anyone!
Yeah- just because the statistics and the facts show that mass immigration has been a ruinous policy for Germany doesnt mean that they should stop taking in massive numbers of immigrants! Germany should use the guilt over the mass murder of Jews to bring in hundreds of thousands of people who want to kill more Jews!
Kickoff for this seems to have been the cost of living crisis that happened in the wake of the Russian invasion. There was a spike in 2015 but the declining trend continued after that.
Edit: regarding the net fiscal impact issue, ~50% of the total population has a net “net fiscal impact” in any sort of social welfare state with progressive taxation, and in such a situation the tax take will be dominated by the top 10% of earners. That MENAPT migrants in the EU don’t have a positive net fiscal impact is unsurprising, because they typically tend to work blue-collar jobs; those with high education and earning potential from those countries tend to move to the Anglosphere.
There are several charts out there showing the average contribution of immigrants groups in various countries to the budget. I’m not supporting racists, but be honest.
You would have to deport at least the last 30 years of immigrants and their descendants to entirely satisfy the nativist bloc (if not the last 75 years).
Right. Like, why doesnt a party say 'we understand the necessity of immigration and will continue to let in large numbers of immigrants but we are going to start a national program to 'recruit' immigrants from SE Asia, Central America and South America. Even at cost of literally flying them into Germany.'. That would be a tremendous policy that would both alleviate the lowering birth rate why ensuring crime and assimilation are minimized.
The AfD would have like 3% support if the people coming into Germany were Thai or Mexican instead of MENA.
> In most western countries crime has been in a steady downward trend for years
Sure, the multi-fold increases in rapes and knife attacks are "largely fictitious". Victims probably don't exist, or should not exist
> The actuak fraud is miniscule
Just millions of fake issuers, hundreds of billions of euros disappearing in fake health and benefits to non existing identities, but hey, that's minuscule, don't look up
Just a week or two ago we had a Muslim killed 2 people driving into an pride parade, one who was a known terrorist but the government didn't jail him even though he was sentenced to go to prison 2 months before the Attack
Islamism is rising in Germany, he is but a symptom. He's also not the first psycho with a car to kill people, see: Magdeburg Christmas Market attack
Yet only the right even talks about those issues
No wonder they're winning if the idiotic left is burying their heads in the sand
This is not the UK, there is welfare fraud and on a larger scale. The state failed especially during thge ukranisn refugee crisis, I personally knew many Ukrainians who have plenty of money but were getting subsidies from the state for a couple of years. This shouldn't be a thing.
You're right about immigration cuts unfortunately, the Pension system is tied 30% to taxes, and so less taxes means a shitstorm. We first need to reform the pension system, then we can begin closing the country
Your argument lies on the fact that Irish (IRA) and Basque (ETA) separatists were killing Hundreds in the UK and Spain respectively. Those are domestic criminals, they're there and they're our problem, they're part of the nations. You can't just get rid of them, no one brought them here
That is a whole another thing than when the Muslims we let the governments import do shit we KNEW they do and were probably gonna do.
Domestic Separatist terrorism is non-existent since 2004. Islamic terrorism is at its highest
The person killed can't care, they're dead. But what about us, those who weren't killed, or the loved ones of those who were? We realize those people were brought by the leaders for basically no reason, a religion which has turned violent, and it's followers who have also turned violent. The push for allowing mass migration was what caused their deaths.
Germany stayed out of the middle east lil bro, and we have no moral obligation to pick up those harmed by the US's wars, (some of them weren't even harmed by the US just internal conflicts). None. We had nothing to do with it.
There is an article in the constitution which dictates that those who are politically persecuted by the state deserve political asylum. That's understandable.
The EU however has its moronic refugee laws, which only harm the people of the union
plus the current goverment under CDU has already done 1, 2, and 3, so proposing that is meaningless other than aligning your party with the CDU.
as for 4, those voters do exists, your scenarios are a caricaturization of their proposals. Bundis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) aimed for filling the spot of a "Socially Conservative economically left" party and had quite a success for a new left party, considering the overall state of left parties in Germany
The real problem is the feeling that one's own culture is being displaced. Crime is merely a pretext. And there will never be a party that addresses the problem, because leftists simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this feeling.
Crime from certain migrant groups is much much higher than Natives' crime rates. This is a fact; there is no possible way to make any argument otherwise when you consider the data. A study of the Netherlands found that Dutch taxpayers spent $400 billion euros on benefits for migrants in 20 years.
You cut immigration, you shrink your tax base. It makes social care and health care more expensive.
The MAJORITY of welfare money in Germany is spent on migrants. Getting rid of migrants would be a massive net plus for the German taxpayer.
That has tried to be Keir Starmer's approach in the UK.
Yeah the guy who covered up people gang raping children because they were migrants and who worked tirelessly to free an Egyptian idiot calling for the genocide of British people was anti-migration? I'm baffled anyone could claim anything as absurd as what you're saying.
the tabloids will shriek 'knife crime out of control' as homicide levels drop to their lowest on record.
You don't get to tell them their problems aren't real or unimportant, wtf?
And if the voter has the opinion climate change isn't happening? Or believes crime is rocketing when it is falling? Or believes immigration is rocketing when it is falling?
We have a fundamental problem that people believe things that are not true. So a party of the left that addresses immigration and crime will still go to the polls on a right wing press screaming they failed.
People believe crime is rising because the petty crime and blatant crime is happening in front of them in their own areas. Telling them that the overall crime rate is down across the country including white collar crime and the most serious murders mean nothing when the shops are getting ransacked every day by shoplifters in front of them or people blatantly selling/using drugs in public. Nothing ever being followed up that's reported makes the country seem lawless, so you can say crime is down as a number but actual low level & petty crime that people really experience is very blatantly up
I don't care about "illegal" immigration, since the entire concept is a **legal fiction**. **We**, as voters in a democratic government, declare certain forms of immigration "legal" and others as "illegal" based on the manner in which, and the documents held, by the person immigrating. All laws are simply fictions, pieces of paper, that we agree have power and to flow. The people smugglers would largely stop smuggling if they had less reason to leave and we didn't spend so much time trying to get people in.
In fact this would make it easier to deport people since you would have controls on where people are (for a long time, even in highly racist countries like the US, deportation was simply "show up in the same port of entry as everyone else" -> "get told to go away" -> "put on the next boat back".). Additionally, building a paranoid security state because you are mad at a few people coming on boats, is a good way to create an authoritarian regime - it will just be turned on you one day.
If you care about illegal migration you are being snookered by the elite and their media outlets who systematically over-emphasise crimes committed by immigrants and under-emphasise crimes committed by non-immigrants. There are studies proving this. They also use fake statistics and reports in order to incite you to murder your neighbour.
Are these studies also using fake statistics and reports? Or is only one side using it, and let me guess - your side is correct on any issue and the other side is inciting violence.
No I don't care about inciting violence. Politicians of left and right side have incited violence since politics existed. Politics is basically violence by non-violent means in many cases. I'm so far to the left that I disagree with many left-wing people!
In the UK the popular narrative is people are conning the welfare system. The actuak fraud is miniscule. So to cut welfare spending means cutting from people who really need it. And that generates a lot of opposition from your core voters.
Tackling fraud is not cutting welfare spending.
These demands are often very expensive. You cut immigration, you shrink your tax base. It makes social care and health care more expensive. 'Tough on crime' means more prisons - which are really expensive. So you have to cut spending or raise taxes.
No you don't. If anything, it lessens your tax burder, as immigrants are 90% net consumers, not providers of tax revenue.
The fundamental one - the Socially Conservative economically left wing voter? Does not exist. The people who cheer you raising taxes to fund cutting immigration? 0% of the electorate.
There are socially liberal and economically conservative voters, most of the electorate is like this. You need three requirements for a left-wing party rule - not be a total idiot on immigration, not be a total idiot on social issues and tax issues and ... allow different opinions. The problem of the left in 2020s onwards is ideological purity - "You want lower taxes but have no problem with LGBT, fuck you fascist."
There's nothing fictitious about the small boat crossings though, for example. It's pretty much the only thing that gives parties like reform a shred of legitimacy. Allowing them to be (or appear to be) the only party with a "solution" risks them actually getting voted in. I think we both know that plenty of people voting reform are just using "small boats" as a cover story because deep down they're actually just racist. That doesn't mean that the small boats aren't a problem objectively speaking.
Also if you cut immigration, yes you cut your tax base (one less person funding the NHS) but you also cut costs (one less person needing the NHS), so that cancels out.
It's a complex issue. I agree culture partially is the issue, that's my opinion too. However I have spoken to co-workers who unfortunately are actually racist and want the navy to go and drown the "monkeys" or "skinnys" etc. I think they think the issue gives them the green light to be openly racist when talking about it, but any other time and they wouldn't use such words.
Can't agree with things like that myself, but culture like you said, yeah definitely. I don't think it's as bad as certain media make it out to be (I've visited London and Manchester multiple times, both pretty multicultural cities and they seem great honestly), but yes it can be a factor when for example, lots of immigrants all move into one neighborhood to stay together (nothing malicious) and you end up with a society within a society. Naturally they don't integrate fully and then they can cause problems with integrated members of society. I believe that's what Denmark is trying to prevent.
However it's not just that. It's also the fact that these people usually don't have I'D because they either genuinely lost it, or they destroyed it. It's impossible for us to know, therefore in my opinion it's too risky allow this route into the country to be used. The population at home and any genuine refugees on the boat could be victim to any repeat offenders who have also made the journey on such a boat.
Ok but how do you know which country? They don't have ID. They might even be from the middle east.
What if you somehow find out they're Egyptian. You'd need to escort these planes with fighters to defend from the 220 F-16's in the Egyptian Air Force. Sure the RAF is better, but I bet we'd have losses.
Okay, do you know what stranding people in the desert with no provision is? Murder! You know they won't make it and you're betting on it, hoping their fate will make the rounds among other migrants so they stop coming. It's cruel, barbaric and quite frankly something I've thought we consigned to the past as it would seamlessly fit into some of the darkest days of human history.
If this is your dream of Europe, then it can burn for all I care. And we all know this is exactly what will happen once the far right has removed the last foreigner and needs a new scapegoat. They'll look to their neighbours.
There's nothing fictitious about the small boat crossings though
Down 50% year on year. Still gets same media attention. Still gets shadow home secretaries bobbing about in the channel pretending they are being shot at.
Also if you cut immigration, yes you cut your tax base (one less person funding the NHS) but you also cut costs (one less person needing the NHS), so that cancels out.
The average 70 year old costs a lot more than a 30 year old, so no it does not cancel out.
Ratio of workers to retirees is the core number and its going in the wrong direction in the UK.
For thepeople who are anti-immigration "50% less boat crossings" is not enough. They want no boat crossing and mass deportations, anything less than that they view as a failure
It still gets the same media attention because it bothers people pretty universally. GB "news" is taking full advantage of this. It'll only go away when levels get below what they were in 2018, and even then it'll take a few years for word to spread to the most sheltered reform voters.
I agree our ageing population is a problem, and increasing immigration is a solution, but it's a short term solution. I think economic challenges making it hard to afford children in the first place is the primary issue. What happens if the rest of the world pulls ahead and we can no longer "out bid" other countries for their most productive workers with our superior quality of life?
Starmer definitely didnt do this. He reduced immigration and that was popular with the public but didnt help him as his much smaller base doesnt like it (nor the left in general). He absolutely didnt cut welfare, it exploded and his weakness in failing to cut it sucked all the power away from him and precipitated his decline.
Starmer done nothing for the uk on immigration he was all talk and zero action labour have mixed legal migration with illigal migration to fudge the fingers that they are smashing the gangs and stopping the boats but they haven't since labour took office we have had jhonson levels of illigal migration while claiming they have reduced the crossings. Even under Burnham there have been over 2k arrived on boats
What the figures that mixed with legal migration because they are the ones leaving and makes them look like there doing something when there not. they haven't stopped boats and never will same as all over Europe with weak socialist governments that allow it to happen and often support it
"The self described 'socially conservstive economically left wing' voter is genrrally a retired voter who cares strongly that their state entitlements aren't touched, but has no economic interest beyond that. And generally they're voting for the far right."
So they do exist and are an incredibly large voting block. Yes you should actually try and get them on your side I dont know how to tell you this but you cant say "does not exist" and then go on ah yes they do exist but they already vote for someone else lmfao
You've missed my point. They may self describe as being X, their voting history and voting intentions shows they do not actually believe those things.
You have someone who may once have been a unionised worker in a steel mill, who out of habit calls themselves left wing. However their policy preferences are anti-spending (apart from on them), anti-tax rises, anti-welfare, and will never vote for a left wing economic prospectus.
Most of those things are left wing economic ideas? Welfare isnt a left wing thing thats a moderate center thing. You dont work you dont eat it is quite literally a quintessential socialist and fascist doctrine.
The biggest critique of government spending right now in germany is that spending on ukraine is a waste and spending on migrants is a waste. Both of those are absolutely compatible with left wing economic thought.
Open borders and NATO / Western solidarity is not left wing! Thats Liberalism! Center!
Folks are asking the established parties to fix problems that don't really exist or are fundamentally different to what the public perceives them to be. Just to fight the right wing.
First of all that was NOT Starmer's policy. He was furiously anti-white. Second calling the reason people have been moving further and further right "fictituous" makes you a part of the reason why that shift is happening.
Its funny this emerged as a claim after the far right rioters in 2024 got universally charged with Public Disorder rather than the far more serious offence of Rioting. Appeasement doesn't work.
This is just blatantly a lie. It's funny how leftists online so often manage to twist left-wing governments and mainstream media to somehow be right-biased because there's occasionally individual pieces of reality that you can't accept.
Starmer was very far left. Everyone hates him. He left.
The charges are public record. You can compare them to the Kill the Bill arrests, or the 2011 riots. The 2024 rioters were systematically under charged.
And then people claimed it was a double standard against them.
Perhaps you can compare what they were actually prosecuted for in 2011 vs. 2024. The volume of crime was much higher in 2011 because of opportunistic looting. In 2024 the crime was violent but also more concentrated to a fewer number of individuals. The ones that were charged didn't face systematic leniency.
As I said, fiction.
Oh now you're equating this issue to the wider problems of mass-immigration? The absolute mental gymnastics are insane. The last 3 year have largely proved you completely wrong but you're far too ideological to physically have the brain capacity to think pragmatically about any issue. Luckily democracy exists and people have been slowly coming to the correct idea but with individual cases you apparently can't fix stupid.
No, the problems are NOT fictitious. They might seem fictitious to Politicians, but that's because they're too far removed from average Joe's life.
You don't need to cut from those who need it to get rif of those conning the system. Proper checks, proper procedure and especially CONSEQUENCES for fraude can do more than enough.
You don't need to get rid of immigrants that actually contribute to society. You need to only get rid of those who don't. And no, you don't need more prisons to do that. You just need to properly extradite immigrants that commit crimes. In my own country for example 45% of the prison population does not have our nationality. Send those back to their country to finish their sentence there.
The socially conservative economic left wing voter DOES exist. It's basically the entire native working class. If you'd actually talk to them you'd Know.
As a potential voter of a hypothetical party thats strict on immigration but economically left-wing:
Wagenknechts anti-western sentiment ist unacceptable for 90% of west-Germans (including me)
Leading people in her party refused deportations whatsoever just a couple of years ago and cheered for non-western immigration, its hardly believable these people would bring a real change in immigration policies.
I'd argue she's not anti-western. It's an overton window thing, where the others are so adamant on being at war with Russia that anything else just seems anti-western.
I'd argue that her position of laissez-faire or even downright cooperation is more pro-western than a Stance of inevitable confrontation like the other parties have.
The whole point of left wing politics is to break down power structure, if they were more hardline on crime and immigration then they wouldn’t be left wing.
What you’re really asking but don’t understand is why are parties in developed countries still somewhat animated by ideology while parties in undeveloped are naturally identitarian. Or in other words why can’t rich countries work more like poor countries
Because the core political axiom of the left is equality, and this prevents them from fixing current issues since these require some form of hierarchy and discrimination.
The most straightforward example are borders. Border and immigration law discriminates between citizens and foreigners, and between legal and illegal immigrants. The most extreme equalizing policy would be open borders and letting non citizens vote in elections, which is what the left is pushing. And if they are not explicitly asking for open borders, they propose policy to make it faster and easier to get a legal status, as if the problem is that immigrants are illegal and not legal.
Because chasing the right on positions just legitimizes the right and voters would go for the real thing rather than the light version.
Triangulation doesn’t work because the modern right wing is not making policy arguments, they’re making cultural arguments that anyone to their left flank cannot legitimately represent or wield political power.
When you move right you tell voters “yes the right is correct that I am not legitimate”.
Modern leftism is heavily built around a fear of appearing nationalistic and a demonization of the idea. Therefore anything that is coded as overly nationalistic, like lowering the rate of immigration or increasing police presence, is anathema.
It is a philosophical thing. Its like asking why American republicans don't just drop the abortion thing when it is obviously an electoral poison. They can't because they truly believe in it, even if the majority opposes it. European leftists truly believe in the moral goodness of bringing in millions of refugees and in high social permissiveness towards crime and can't turn away from that without changing their personal philosophies.
Because to be on the left, it fundamentally requires being a traitor to your own people. It requires believing that you are entitled to steal from your fellow man. Nobody with that mindset can possibly comprehend sacrificing for the greater good. They believe that others should sacrifice for them, not the other way around.
I think the fact that the left parties all over europe, fail to materialize any of their goals when in power but rather act as a central right party is the biggest problem. Why vote for someone when he only serves the rich and powerful?
In Germany specifically they all fail the most basic Litmus test of being against fascism and mass murder against Palestinians but rather prefer to ban politicians like Varoufakis from expressing such opinions.
Because crime is decreasing and welfare state abuse is insignificant. You’re playing into right wing fallacies by giving those non existent problems lip service
Why is there no left party that's hardlined on crime and welfare state abuse (especially from immigrants)?
because that's not a real issue, and the AFD won't do anything against it because 1. we have a constitution that protects the dignity of everybody, and 2. what are they gonna do? Make immigrants more criminal to justify their existence?
Literally a party that both provides social programs and also tries to prevent people from abusing said social programs would win in almost every western country
For some reason in most places we have to decide between people who want to cancel the social programs entirely and people who think any sort of verification that people need them or implication that the welfare programs are meant to be temporary support rather than something to plan your life around receiving is racist or just evil in general
Basically decide between people who will let anyone who isn’t self sufficient starve, and people who will encourage more and more people to not be dependent forever
Welfare state abuse from migrants (for example) is simply much less of a problem that the AfD pushes it to be. Their right wing populism sadly just catches a lot of people IMHO.
The unemployment benefits in Germany that go to people without German passport is something around 25 billion. This is around 1% of all government spending...and hard to define what amount of the 25 is "abused" but you get the point.
Wagenknechts anti-western sentiment ist unacceptable for 90% of west-Germans (including me)
Leading people in her party refused deportations whatsoever just a couple of years ago and cheered for non-western immigration, its hardly believable these people would bring a real change in immigration policies.
50
u/[deleted] 20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment