Removing the ammunition of the enemy by letting yourself getting shot by it is… possible, but foolish.
So, AfD say that there are too many illegal immigrants, people see that it is true (come on, you just need to walk around the city) and they voted them.
You remove the illegal immigrants, AfD what can say now ?
If they say there are still illegal immigrants and people don’t see them (or do not consider this a problem anymore) then they consider AfD good-for-nothings (ok, some will continue to vote for them, idiots are always present)
Result: AfD has not anymore a way to weaponize illegal immigration, you remove an “ammunition” in their propagandistic “weapon”.
Do this for almost every point AfD make and you end up with a society that is better and AfD gone back to the irrelevant group it was when born, like every extremist party.
Some problem would not be completely solved, it is not possible, but you just need to lower them below a threshold that make it bearable and you remove them anyway from the arsenal the far right parties can use in their propaganda.
Let me give you an example of what already happened in the same exact way: back then, in my city (Milan, Italy), every now and then there would be someone at an intersection offering to wash your windshield; people didn’t mind because it happened only occasionally—in fact, they often accepted the service in exchange for a few coins. When these people started showing up at every single intersection (sometimes even more than one person at a single intersection), becoming pushy, and causing minor damage to cars if you refused, people began to see them as an increasingly annoying problem.
Did you know what happened ?
What happened was that, after two elections, the candidate who promised to eliminate the problem was elected—after the other candidates had twice downplayed, if not outright denied, the problem. And he won because he was able to target these people and brand them as a problem (in part they truly were, but for the most part they were just desperate people), and the electorate identified with what he was saying—they had firsthand experience with exactly what the “extremist” candidate was describing.
If the ruling party had addressed the issue, this extremist candidate would never have won: what could he have latch onto? A few persons who occasionally wants to wash your windshield at an intersection? If he had used that as a campaign issue, he would have been ridiculed.
Basically the ruling parties decided to offer the extremist candidates ammunitions, the same errors the ruling parties in most of Europe are doing right now.
So, AfD say that there are too many illegal immigrants, people see that it is true (come on, you just need to walk around the city) and they voted them.
You remove the illegal immigrants, AfD what can say now ?
If they say there are still illegal immigrants and people don’t see them (or do not consider this a problem anymore) then they consider AfD good-for-nothings (ok, some will continue to vote for them, idiots are always present) Result: AfD has not anymore a way to weaponize illegal immigration, you remove an “ammunition” in their propagandistic “weapon”.
Do this for almost every point AfD make and you end up with a society that is better and AfD gone back to the irrelevant group it was when born, like every extremist party.
Some problem would not be completely solved, it is not possible, but you just need to lower them below a threshold that make it bearable and you remove them anyway from the arsenal the far right parties can use in their propaganda.
Let me give you an example of what already happened in the same exact way: back then, in my city (Milan, Italy), every now and then there would be someone at an intersection offering to wash your windshield; people didn’t mind because it happened only occasionally—in fact, they often accepted the service in exchange for a few coins. When these people started showing up at every single intersection (sometimes even more than one person at a single intersection), becoming pushy, and causing minor damage to cars if you refused, people began to see them as an increasingly annoying problem.
Did you know what happened ?
What happened was that, after two elections, the candidate who promised to eliminate the problem was elected—after the other candidates had twice downplayed, if not outright denied, the problem. And he won because he was able to target these people and brand them as a problem (in part they truly were, but for the most part they were just desperate people), and the electorate identified with what he was saying—they had firsthand experience with exactly what the “extremist” candidate was describing.
If the ruling party had addressed the issue, this extremist candidate would never have won: what could he have latch onto? A few persons who occasionally wants to wash your windshield at an intersection? If he had used that as a campaign issue, he would have been ridiculed.
Basically the ruling parties decided to offer the extremist candidates ammunitions, the same errors the ruling parties in most of Europe are doing right now.