> Enforcing the law is not anti-immigramt insanity.
Interesting you mention that, a few threads ago you were adamant that the EU wanting to enforce their speech laws on Twitter was 100% anti-free-speech insanity though.
It would seem that for you the insanity of the sheer fact of enforcement (since you clearly weren't talking about the character of enforcement) depends on your underlying sentiment on the given topic. Is that really intentional on your part? Sounds a bit perilous to me reasoning wise, if so.
Or did you simply change your mind since our last discussion?
There is a difference between the US enforcing visas within the borders of the country and the EU using their laws to affect an American website, allow slurping up data of Americans living in America outside of the EU's jurisduction. America already went to war to stop Europe from ruling over us. The legality of operating every jurisdiction is going to be more complicated due to having to deal with unreasonable demands of foriegn countries or contradicting laws. It's much more complicated than a country enforcing who can be within their borders with visas where the US has clear jurisdiction. If you were to ask me if I think X should respect US law like the DMCA I would say they should absolutely be following US law.
So if Twitter complied with the demands such that flagged EU-illegal content still remains available to non-EU (e.g. US) visitors, thus not removing anything on the demands of a foreign jurisdiction, in your eyes it would suddenly no longer be a case of "anti-free-speech insanity"?
Cause the whole "they're ordering around an American company" defense falls apart pretty quickly when said American company also operates (read: is accessible from) within EU borders, and in general can be used by citizens of EU member states (independent of their location).
I believe that would be a reasonable solution, but at the same time I would feel bad that the EU has elected people to do such a thing to their people, but ultimately it's not my problem that they got into this state and have a worse version of X.
The enforcement is the problem if it is not secure legally. If you want to handle it with an iron fist like a dictatorship sure you can create laws to that effect, but there should be some human values on the books that makes those laws humane.
It's basically an objective fact at this point that excessive immigration is really, really bad, just look at all the politicians flipping sides on the issue. Look at the stats on European countries with the highest immigration rates vs those with the lowest (e.g. Poland)
By what metric are you looking at european countries and determining Poland is doing the best? If given the choice between say Ireland and Poland, which place would you prefer to live?
Look at RATE of growth (GDP, employment, safety, etc.) since immigration started getting bad in places like the UK - compare it's growth directly to the UK, or even the entire EU
I’m no expert, but reducing something as complex as a whole country’s economic outlook to just the variable „immigration“ seems like an oversimplification to me.
* developed countries obviously develop slower than developing ones. Is easier to improve if your economy is shit especially if you join a union of more advanced countries.
* polish immigration actually skyrocketed recently since Russia invaded Ukraine. It didn't harm employment, safety, growth rate or anything else yet.
2025 GDP growth for Poland is projected for 3.2 to 3.8%; for Ireland it's projected to be 10 to 11%. Poland's unemployment rate is up in 2025 from 2019, Ireland's is down. Poland's crime rate remained relatively constant in the period from 2018 to 2021 at .71 per 100k while Ireland's dropped over the same period from .81 to .44 per 100k.
