They are Eating our Pets

This article forms the foundation of a broader project; a book exploring immigration, nationalism, and the evolving nature of societal integration across various cultures. In this piece, I’ll highlight a few key aspects and reference specific countries as examples, but I want to assure readers that this is not about singling out any one nation for criticism. The book will provide a more comprehensive, global analysis.

I specifically mention Italy because it illustrates both the challenges and missed opportunities I have observed firsthand. I am deeply invested in Italy’s future; I have an Italian son and have spent years watching the country grapple with issues that seem, at times, self-defeating. My observations come from a place of frustration, not disdain. They are an attempt to understand why some countries embrace diversity as a strength, while others, perhaps unwittingly, hold themselves back. This is a subject I feel deserves both scrutiny and optimism for the changes that can foster a more inclusive, resilient world.

It’s indeed compelling to see how immigration, framed negatively in so many political agendas, can actually drive economic growth and social stability. Professor Peo Hansen’s research on Sweden’s experience during the 2015 European migrant crisis illustrates this well. When Sweden accepted a large number of refugees, the prediction was an economic strain, yet the opposite happened: economic activity and growth surged. Hansen’s analysis sheds light on the flawed fiscal models used to assess migration, which often reduces complex human potential to simplistic costs.

He argues that migrants, as real resources (skilled workers, caregivers, educators) are indispensable assets, not burdens. As he points out, symbolically treating migration as a financial liability overlooks real-world needs, such as labour in health care and public services. The point about brain drain within the EU is especially striking, as emigration from countries like Romania has left them in dire need of skilled professionals, underscoring the complex interplay between migration and resources within Europe.

This perspective challenges the idea that immigration is inherently detrimental, highlighting instead that it can be a lifeline for both economic and demographic needs if real resources and infrastructure are considered realistically rather than through limited fiscal metrics.

Recent immigration to the U.S. has contributed immensely to the economy in ways that go unacknowledged in political rhetoric. Studies show that immigrants are creating wealth by filling essential roles across industries, from agriculture to technology, that would otherwise face labour shortages. Many of these jobs are less appealing to locals, yet crucial for economic stability, from caregiving to construction to tech innovation. Economists note that immigrants complement, rather than replace, the native workforce, often filling gaps that allow locals to move into higher-paying or more specialized positions.

Additionally, immigrants are statistically more law-abiding than native-born citizens; a fact that often surprises those steeped in anti-immigration narratives. Data shows that immigrants contribute billions in taxes annually, supporting public services and bolstering the Social Security system. In the U.S., where an aging population threatens to strain resources, this younger immigrant workforce is essential for future economic sustainability. The narrative that immigrants are a drain is contradicted by evidence that they are a net positive, contributing economically, socially, and culturally.

Professor Peo Hansen’s findings, alongside data from other economic studies, highlight immigration as a powerful driver of economic growth and social stability for countries that welcome newcomers. Countries like Sweden, the United States, Australia, Canada, and Germany have seen significant benefits from recent immigration, especially in terms of labour market growth, tax contributions, and addressing demographic imbalances. In contrast, countries that restrict immigration face a range of demographic and economic issues, such as labour shortages, stagnating economies, and growing gaps in welfare and healthcare support for aging populations.

Here’s a closer look at specific examples:

1. Sweden

• Impact of Immigration: During the 2015 migrant crisis, Sweden took in one of the highest numbers of refugees per capita in Europe, and although it was initially predicted that this would strain its economy, the opposite occurred. Economic growth surged, with Sweden achieving nearly 4.5% growth at the height of the crisis. Immigration filled essential roles in public services, with immigrants now making up a significant portion of Sweden’s healthcare and transportation sectors.
• Stability: Employment rates for immigrants in Sweden have risen dramatically over recent years, helping address labour shortages and supporting welfare and healthcare services. This labour influx has been essential in keeping the system balanced, as Sweden also faces a rising number of retirees.

2. United States

• Impact of Immigration: The U.S. benefits greatly from immigrant contributions across all skill levels. Immigrants make up a large portion of the workforce in agriculture, construction, technology, and entrepreneurship, filling roles that locals are often unwilling to take, especially in low-wage and high-demand industries. Additionally, immigrants start businesses at higher rates than native-born citizens, generating jobs and contributing to local economies.
• Stability: Immigrants contribute over $400 billion annually in federal, state, and local taxes, which supports social security and other public services. The U.S. population is aging, and immigrant workers are crucial for maintaining a balanced tax base to support the healthcare and welfare needs of the elderly.

3. Canada

• Impact of Immigration: Canada actively recruits immigrants to offset its aging population and labour shortages. Immigration programs specifically target skilled workers, healthcare professionals, and labourers for sectors in need. Immigrants contribute to Canada’s GDP growth by addressing gaps in healthcare, technology, and construction. Canada’s population growth, mostly due to immigration, ensures a steady labour supply for its economy.
• Stability: Immigrants bolster tax revenues, contribute to urban growth, and keep the social welfare system viable as birth rates decline. Without immigration, Canada’s population would age at a much faster rate, making healthcare and pension systems unsustainable in the long term.

4. Germany

• Impact of Immigration: Germany faced an influx of immigrants in the 2015 crisis, leading to initial fears about economic strain. However, like Sweden, Germany benefited economically. Immigrants filled labour shortages in manufacturing, healthcare, and service industries, supporting Germany’s export-heavy economy. Migrants have also provided a youthful workforce to help balance the country’s aging population.
• Stability: Immigrants’ contributions are critical to Germany’s long-term economic stability, with immigrants accounting for a growing share of its workforce. This is essential in a country with one of Europe’s oldest populations, where pension systems would otherwise be under significant strain.

Countries with Restrictive Immigration Policies and Demographic Challenges

Countries like Japan, Hungary, and Italy have opted for restrictive immigration policies, and each faces unique economic and demographic challenges as a result.

1. Japan

• Challenges: Japan’s population is aging rapidly, and with a low birth rate, it is on track to lose a quarter of its population by 2050. The country has strict immigration policies, making it difficult to offset these trends.
• Economic Impact: Labor shortages are already affecting sectors like healthcare and manufacturing, limiting economic growth potential. Japan is struggling to sustain its pension and healthcare systems, with fewer young workers contributing to the tax base.

2. Hungary

• Challenges: Hungary has one of the EU’s lowest immigration rates and a rapidly aging population. Although the government has implemented pro-family policies to boost the birth rate, these efforts haven’t been enough to counter the aging demographic.
• Economic Impact: Labor shortages are particularly severe in healthcare and education, resulting in declining service quality. Hungary’s restrictive immigration stance limits its workforce, slowing economic growth and diminishing long-term economic stability.

3. Italy

• Challenges: Italy’s birth rate is one of the lowest in Europe, and it has one of the oldest populations globally. Although the country allows some immigration, political opposition (even within the current coalition Government), to large-scale immigration persists.
• Economic Impact: Italy faces labour shortages in agriculture, manufacturing, and healthcare. The aging population is increasing the strain on Italy’s pension system, while fewer workers contribute taxes added to the known tax avoidance by Italians. Without immigration, Italy’s economic growth potential remains limited, and future financial instability is likely as public debt grows.

In sum, immigration has been a catalyst for growth in countries that embrace it, particularly those facing aging demographics. In countries that restrict immigration, however, demographic challenges are becoming severe, leading to labour shortages, reduced economic dynamism, and strains on public welfare systems. The evidence suggests that well-managed immigration policies not only support economic resilience but also ensure long-term stability in aging societies.

The “they are taking our jobs” narrative is a misconception that has been strategically amplified by elites, lobbyists, and politicians who benefit from diverting public attention away from the actual drivers of job loss; automation and technological advances. This narrative serves as a convenient scapegoat, yet the data repeatedly shows that immigrants often fill essential roles that locals are unwilling to take on, from agriculture and healthcare support to construction and hospitality; all roles that keep societies functioning.

1. Jobs Immigrants Fill Are Often Unwanted by Locals

• Immigrants typically work in roles that have high turnover, low wages, and physically demanding tasks. These jobs are crucial to everyday life, such as crop picking, caregiving, cleaning, and food service, and yet face chronic labour shortages because locals often avoid them. In fact, many of these sectors would face collapse without immigrant labour.
• By taking on these roles, immigrants enable locals to take up higher-paying or specialized positions, allowing economies to grow through a complementary workforce rather than a competitive one.

2. Automation: The Real Driver of Job Loss

• Studies show that automation has already displaced millions of jobs and will continue to do so at an accelerated rate. Robotics and AI are transforming industries like manufacturing, retail, logistics, and even professional sectors such as finance and law. For example, self-checkout systems, automated warehouses, and AI-driven data analysis are steadily replacing entry-level and skilled jobs alike.
• According to research, up to 45% of current jobs could be automated with existing technology, and as AI capabilities expand, this figure is likely to grow. It’s estimated that by the 2030s, automation will replace around 20–25% of jobs across sectors in the U.S. alone. Rather than focusing on reskilling workers or addressing this shift head-on, some policymakers prefer to stoke fears around immigration as a convenient distraction.

3. Political and Economic Interests in Sustaining the “Immigrant Threat” Narrative

• Elites and certain political entities often exploit immigration as a divisive tool to detract from systemic economic challenges like automation and wage stagnation. Lobbyists, particularly those connected to corporations that benefit from low labour costs, have little incentive to discuss automation’s impact on workers openly. Instead, they promote immigration restrictions to stir up public anxiety and make it seem as if they are “protecting” jobs for citizens.
• This rhetoric keeps people focused on a manufactured external threat rather than pushing for policies that would safeguard their livelihoods from the actual disruptions caused by technological advancement. Addressing the reality of automation would require investing in retraining programs, updating labour laws, and even reconsidering economic policies that prioritize shareholder profits over workers’ well-being. But these changes would challenge the interests of those in power.

4. Automation’s Influence on the Economy and Society

• As automation grows, there’s a pressing need for forward-thinking policies that support workers. Universal Basic Income (UBI), job retraining programs, and more adaptable social safety nets are among the strategies that could prepare societies for a future where technology handles an increasing share of tasks. These policies would also foster a more resilient workforce, better equipped to adapt to economic changes.
• Yet, diverting the conversation to immigration allows policymakers to sidestep these solutions, leaving the workforce underprepared for the ongoing impact of automation. This lack of preparation exacerbates inequality, as automation-driven job loss disproportionately affects lower-income and less-educated workers who don’t have easy access to reskilling opportunities.

In short, by scapegoating immigrants, those in power obscure automation’s rapid encroachment on traditional employment.

A fundamental yet often overlooked aspect of immigration success is the willingness of a society to truly integrate newcomers. This inclusivity (offering equal opportunities, respecting cultural differences, and recognizing immigrants’ skills and qualifications) profoundly impacts how much value immigration can bring to a nation. Sweden and Australia are excellent examples of this approach, while Italy and other countries with more rigid social and professional hierarchies miss out on the economic and social benefits that come with embracing immigrant talent fully.

1. Sweden’s Approach to Integration

• Sweden’s success with immigration stems not only from policies but also from a social openness to integrate immigrants into the fabric of society. This openness allows immigrants to participate meaningfully in the workforce, including in their fields of expertise, such as healthcare, technology, and education.
• Swedish institutions prioritize language support and skills training to help immigrants transition into local economies effectively. Many immigrants find employment aligned with their qualifications, which fosters economic productivity, reduces poverty, and minimizes underemployment.

2. Australia’s Inclusive Model

• Australia’s identity as a nation built by immigrants creates a culture where linguistic and cultural diversity is respected rather than stigmatized. There is a strong emphasis on giving immigrants opportunities that match their skills and experience, rather than relegating them to low-skilled roles.
• Australia’s labour market is more flexible regarding qualifications from abroad, meaning that immigrants, regardless of their language proficiency or background, often have better chances of entering professions aligned with their expertise. This inclusivity maximizes the benefits immigrants bring, as they are better able to contribute their skills to the economy without facing professional downgrading.

3. Italy and the Subtle Nationalistic Divide

• In contrast, Italy’s long-standing social structure often resists immigrant integration at deeper levels. Even skilled immigrants, such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers, frequently encounter systemic barriers that limit them to menial, low-paying jobs. There is an implicit social stratification, where immigrants are often seen as second-class citizens, regardless of their qualifications.
• Language and cultural ‘snobbery’ play a role as well. Immigrants with limited Italian language skills or a distinct accent may be perceived as unqualified, sidelining them from professional opportunities. This not only hampers Italy’s economy, which loses out on vital skills but also creates resentment and a lack of motivation among immigrant communities.

4. The Broader Impact of Integration on Economic Opportunities

• Studies show that countries valuing immigrant qualifications (by recognizing foreign credentials and removing unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles), experience greater economic growth and innovation. When immigrants can work in roles that match their education and experience, they contribute to specialized industries, healthcare, education, and more, which are areas where many European countries, including Italy, have labour shortages.
• By failing to recognize immigrants’ potential, countries with rigid social systems limit themselves economically and socially. This missed opportunity also deepens inequality, as immigrants are denied the chance to advance professionally, leading to social marginalization and economic stagnation in certain regions.

5. Social Inclusion as a Driver of National Prosperity

• Countries like Sweden and Australia demonstrate that an inclusive society (one that views immigrants as equals and allows them to integrate fully), is more adaptable and prosperous. Embracing diversity in the workforce promotes creativity, brings fresh perspectives, and fosters resilience. It also strengthens the social fabric, as immigrants feel a sense of belonging and investment in their new home.
• By contrast, places with entrenched social hierarchies or a tendency toward nationalism often experience limited gains from immigration because immigrants face (often subtle) systemic discrimination that keeps them from reaching their full potential. This dynamic is a significant factor in why Italy, despite having a notable immigrant population, has not experienced the same economic boosts seen in Sweden or Australia.

In sum, a country’s approach to integrating immigrants goes beyond policy; it’s also about attitude and openness to diversity. By treating immigrants as valued members of society and enabling them to work at their skill level, countries unlock immense economic and social value. Australia’s experience as an immigrant-built nation shows the long-term benefits of inclusivity, while Italy’s constrained integration highlights the risks of clinging to exclusionary, hierarchical structures. Integration and opportunity for all are vital to maximizing immigration’s benefits, a lesson that many countries could greatly benefit from.

The rise of AI-driven humanoid robots represents a seismic shift for the job market that far outweighs any impact of immigration, yet immigration is still cast as the “villain” in employment discussions. Tesla’s vision, where affordable humanoids become widespread, underscores how close we are to a reality where machines perform a wide range of physical and cognitive tasks traditionally done by humans. If Tesla achieves its goal of selling humanoid robots for $15,000, the implications for employment and wages are staggering, as this price point could make robots accessible even to small businesses and households, leading to significant job displacement.

1. The Affordability of AI-Driven Humanoids and Its Economic Impact

• With prices starting as low as $10,000–$15,000, humanoid robots would quickly become cost-effective alternatives to minimum-wage labour. This “one-time investment” is a fraction of what it costs to hire, train, and pay a human worker annually. Small and medium-sized businesses, which are usually the least likely to adopt high-cost automation, could also begin replacing jobs en masse with robots, as these humanoids become financially viable.
• This shift would impact sectors like retail, logistics, hospitality, and healthcare assistance first, where repetitive, low-skill jobs are prevalent. But over time, the affordability and functionality of humanoids would enable them to take on more complex roles, extending displacement to higher-skilled jobs, too.

2. The Disruption to Employment and Wages

• Humanoid robots could replace tens of millions of low-wage jobs globally, displacing workers in sectors where humans are currently essential. Unlike previous waves of automation, which often created new types of jobs, humanoid robots could potentially reduce the need for human workers altogether in many roles, resulting in a net loss of jobs.
• As automation increases, the competition for remaining jobs intensifies, likely driving wages down, particularly for low and mid-skill jobs that robots can handle. This situation could exacerbate income inequality and destabilize economies if large portions of the workforce become redundant with limited options for reskilling.

3. The Economic “Bonanza” vs. Social and Employment Challenges

• Elon Musk’s focus on the “bonanza” for Tesla and the shareholder benefits is a clear indicator of the priorities in this conversation; stock value, profit, and innovation take precedence over the social and economic repercussions of widespread job displacement.
• Without meaningful discussion on how to handle this impending employment disruption, societies risk facing an economic divide that could worsen already existing inequalities. Wealth will likely flow disproportionately to shareholders and corporations leading the AI and robotics markets, while displaced workers and communities bear the brunt of job losses.

4. Policy Blind Spots and the Immigration Distraction

• Political leaders and lobbyists tend to sideline or minimize discussions on automation-driven job loss. The immigration debate remains a useful tool for redirecting public frustration toward immigrants rather than addressing the underlying structural issues that threaten the workforce. This misdirection creates the illusion that immigration, rather than technology, is eroding job opportunities.
• In reality, automation poses a far more imminent threat to job stability than immigration. Policy conversations should shift focus to solutions like Universal Basic Income (UBI), job retraining programs, and economic models that prioritize human welfare over short-term corporate profits.

5. The Need for Forward-Thinking Policies and Social Safety Nets

• If governments fail to proactively address the rise of affordable humanoid robots, the economic and social consequences could be catastrophic. Initiatives like UBI, which would provide a safety net for those unable to find employment due to automation, could help mitigate the transition to a more automated society.
• Other forward-thinking approaches, such as tax policies that incentivize human employment or “robot taxes” on companies that replace large numbers of human workers with robots, could help fund social safety nets and education programs. Investing in reskilling programs and encouraging industries that require human creativity, critical thinking, and interpersonal skills can also help keep humans employed in meaningful roles.

6. The Social Repercussions of Humanoid Robots on Equality and Dignity

• The moral and ethical implications of widespread robot adoption are profound. The risk is that low-wage and unskilled workers will bear the brunt of displacement, while a small elite class benefits from the increased productivity and profitability. This situation could create a society with deep divides in wealth, purpose, and identity, where many feel left behind by technological progress.
• By continuing to focus on immigration as a “threat” to employment, policymakers ignore the potential for social disruption brought on by automation and AI, which has far-reaching consequences beyond jobs; it touches on issues of dignity, societal roles, and the purpose of human work.

In sum, while Tesla and other companies pursue the promise of an AI-driven future, the disruption to employment, income equality, and social stability is monumental. If societies continue to view immigration as a scapegoat, they miss the opportunity to address the real threats posed by automation and to build a fairer, more resilient system. The shift to automation requires open, proactive discussions about shared prosperity and policies that support human dignity in an AI-dominated world.

The learning capacity of AI-driven humanoid robots is exponential, which adds a new layer of complexity to the impending disruption. Unlike traditional machines, these robots are not limited to preprogrammed tasks; they use AI to continuously improve and adapt to new situations in real-time, which means they can learn a range of skills autonomously, quickly becoming competent in complex tasks that previously required human intelligence and decision-making.

1. Exponential Learning and Versatility

• AI-driven humanoids are now capable of using machine learning algorithms that allow them to adapt to new tasks dynamically. For example, rather than being assigned to a single repetitive task, a humanoid could start in one role, such as warehouse stocking, and autonomously learn (at lightning speed) additional tasks, like quality control or customer assistance, without any human intervention.
• Their ability to accumulate skills “on the fly” means that a single robot could replace multiple roles, adapting as needed and continually becoming more efficient. This adaptability accelerates job displacement because one humanoid can effectively handle multiple responsibilities, learning as it goes.

2. Impacts on Job Complexity and Skill Levels

• Jobs once thought to require uniquely human skills, such as decision-making, problem-solving, and even interpersonal interaction, are now within reach for advanced humanoids. This rapid learning ability allows them to quickly close the gap on tasks traditionally requiring training, judgment, or nuanced understanding, which were previously reserved for human workers.
• As a result, this could lead to the displacement of mid to high-skilled jobs, including those in areas like customer service, analysis, and certain medical or technical roles. Humanoids may soon be capable of handling roles like healthcare assistants, technicians, and even roles in the legal and financial sectors, which were previously less susceptible to automation.

3. Self-improvement and Fleet Update, Without Human Oversight

• The autonomous learning capabilities of these humanoids mean they can self-optimize over time. For example, they can use reinforcement learning to recognize patterns, avoid mistakes, and optimize task execution based on past performance. This capacity for improvement without human intervention gives them a significant advantage over human workers who need continual training and development.
• The ability to “self-train and fleet update” on new tasks also makes these robots extremely attractive to employers, as it reduces the need for investment in human training programs, contributing to an even faster rate of adoption and displacement in the workforce.

4. Disruption in Workforce Training and Reskilling

• The exponential learning curve of humanoids disrupts traditional workforce dynamics and training structures. When robots can self-learn and execute tasks as well as, or even better than, human employees, it significantly reduces the incentive for companies to invest in reskilling human workers.
• This is a stark departure from previous waves of technological advancement, where new technologies required skilled operators or technicians. With self-learning robots, that never tire, the demand for human skills might actually diminish in many sectors, even as technology advances.

5. Potential Societal and Economic Consequences

• Wage Suppression and Underemployment: As AI humanoids continue to learn and replace jobs, the competition for remaining human-led roles could intensify, driving down wages and increasing underemployment. This scenario could affect everyone from entry-level workers to skilled professionals.
• The shift in Economic Power: Companies that adopt AI-driven humanoids will likely see productivity and profit soar, benefiting shareholders but potentially leaving a large portion of society without meaningful employment or income. This concentration of economic power within corporations that leverage these robots could exacerbate wealth inequality.
• Psychological and Social Impact: With humanoids learning and adapting at exponential rates, people may begin to feel devalued in the workplace or struggle to find a sense of purpose. The rapid pace of change may lead to widespread psychological and social challenges, as people grapple with their place in a society increasingly dominated by self-learning machines.

6. The Imperative for Proactive Policies

• Given the unprecedented learning potential of humanoids, there is an urgent need for policies that address the social and economic impact of AI-driven automation. This includes exploring ideas like universal basic income, shorter work weeks, and potentially even redefining the role of work in society.
• Regulatory frameworks may also need to include yearly “humanoid taxes” or incentives for human employment to ensure that society benefits from productivity gains. Another potential approach could involve directing tax revenue from humanoid-driven companies to fund retraining programs or social services to mitigate the displacement effects.

In short, the ability of AI-driven humanoids to learn new tasks on the fly disrupts not only the job market but also the very structure of society and the economy. Without forward-looking policies, we risk entering a world where only a small percentage benefits from technological advancements, leaving the majority to face job scarcity and income instability. Addressing these issues head-on will be essential to ensuring a future where technology benefits all, not just the few.

Around the “kitchen table” conversations about jobs or resources, are eclipsed by topics like nationalism and cultural biases, which are the deeper reasons why anti-immigrant narratives resonate so strongly. Populist leaders exploit these cultural misgivings, playing on fears of losing national identity, traditions, and cultural cohesion to create a “them versus us” mentality. This appeals to a sense of nationalism that, when stoked by populist rhetoric, can turn immigrants into convenient scapegoats for broader social and economic frustrations.

1. Nationalism as a Tool for Populist Narratives

• Populists often equate immigrants with a perceived threat to national identity, suggesting that the “purity” of national culture is under attack. This rhetoric positions immigrants as a foreign influence that allegedly dilutes or corrupts the national character. By appealing to nationalist sentiments, populists tap into a deep-seated need for identity and belonging, framing immigration as a danger to these values.
• Populist leaders cleverly amplify fears that immigrants won’t assimilate or respect local traditions, which taps into the desire to preserve a cultural status quo. This strategy is highly effective because it speaks to emotional triggers rather than rational arguments, making it more difficult to counter with facts alone.

2. Cultural Misgivings and the Fear of Change

• Many people fear that increased immigration leads to the loss of familiar cultural norms. Whether it’s language, religion, customs, or even culinary traditions, change can feel like an encroachment rather than an enrichment. Populists amplify these concerns by portraying immigration as a “cultural invasion,” rather than as a source of diversity and innovation.
• This cultural discomfort is often unspoken but deeply influential in shaping people’s views on immigration. By addressing these concerns indirectly, populist leaders validate these underlying fears without requiring followers to confront them openly, allowing them to build support without engaging in direct bigotry.

3. The Myth of the ‘Unassimilable’ Immigrant

• Populist leaders frequently promote the idea that immigrants cannot or will not assimilate, even though many immigrants are eager to integrate and contribute to their new societies. This myth implies that immigrants want to impose their culture rather than adapt, creating a narrative of cultural incompatibility.
• By spreading this myth, populists create a sense of cultural superiority, framing native citizens as “real” patriots and immigrants as outsiders who can never fully belong. This sentiment can lead to discriminatory practices and social exclusion, effectively trapping immigrants in a cycle where they are judged for not integrating even as opportunities to do so are limited.

4. Economic Insecurity as a Catalyst for Cultural Fears

• Economic insecurity compounds these cultural misgivings. When people are struggling financially, it’s easier to feel that resources are scarce and that newcomers are competitors rather than contributors. Populists capitalize on this by framing immigration as a zero-sum game, where every benefit an immigrant receives supposedly comes at the expense of a native citizen.
• This narrative diverts attention away from systemic issues, like automation and income inequality, which are the real drivers of economic hardship. By focusing on immigrants as the “problem,” populists obscure these larger issues, enabling elites to avoid accountability.

5. Populism and the Weaponization of Nostalgia

• Populists often appeal to nostalgia for a “better past,” a time when the nation was allegedly more prosperous and united. Immigrants, then, are painted as symbols of change that disrupt this nostalgic ideal. This tactic of yearning for a romanticized past, where the nation was “strong” and “pure,” is a powerful emotional appeal that works precisely because it ignores the complexities of the real past.
• Nostalgia can be potent because it’s selective; people remember what they liked about the past but ignore the issues that were also present. Populists weaponize this selective memory, casting immigrants as symbols of all that has changed for the worse.

6. Media and Populist Amplification of Cultural Anxieties

• Media plays a key role in amplifying populist narratives. Populists often have the support of media outlets that push sensationalized stories about immigrants to reinforce stereotypes and fears. Stories about immigrant crime, for example, are often emphasised disproportionately compared to actual statistics, creating an exaggerated perception of threat.
• This selective portrayal helps solidify the cultural misgivings that underlie many “kitchen table” conversations. The resulting confirmation bias allows people to feel justified in their anti-immigrant views, reinforcing the populist narrative.

7. The Importance of Addressing Cultural Fears Head-On

• To counter populist narratives effectively, there needs to be an honest, empathetic dialogue about the cultural concerns people hold. Recognising that change can be uncomfortable, it’s important to highlight how diversity enriches society rather than threatening it.
• Building inclusive national identities that embrace diversity can help mitigate these cultural fears. Education, media representation, and community integration initiatives can play a crucial role in bridging divides. It’s about creating a narrative where immigrants are seen as contributors to national culture and progress (which is factual), not threats.

In short, the root of anti-immigrant sentiment lies not in job competition or crime statistics, but in a potent mix of nationalism, cultural fears, and nostalgia that populists skillfully exploit. By addressing these underlying sentiments and shifting the focus to shared values and opportunities, it’s possible to counter the divisive rhetoric that populists rely on. This kind of proactive approach helps build a society that values diversity as part of its identity, fostering unity rather than division.

In this article, I’ve explored the complex dynamics of immigration, nationalism, and societal integration, using examples from specific countries to illustrate both successes and challenges. While countries like Sweden and Australia have embraced immigrants as valuable contributors, benefiting economically and socially, other nations like Italy reveal the consequences of cultural misgivings and nationalistic hesitance toward integration. These differences underscore how open-mindedness and inclusivity can enhance a nation’s resilience and prosperity, while exclusionary practices can lead to missed opportunities and economic stagnation.

As I continue developing these ideas for my book, I want to stress that my critiques are not directed toward any single country but rather at the systemic issues that hinder progress. My observations of Italy, for example, stem from personal investment and frustration with policies that seem to undermine potential. This journey is about understanding and addressing these barriers so we can build societies that see diversity not as a threat but as a pathway to strength and unity.