Ismail Djalilov
is an American journalist originally from Azerbaijan.
He is the host of “Straight Talk” channel on YouTube,
where he interviews politicians, diplomats,
and other newsmakers on developments in Azerbaijan
and wider Eurasia in Azerbaijani, Russian, and English.
Note: The original version of this article is written in English.
Introduction
The Western world is facing an immigration problem, yet the current political discourse fails to address it in a meaningful way. On one side, the frameworks tolerated by proponents of the status quo prevent any intellectually honest discussion of the social and economic problems caused by uncontrolled immigration, dismissing and marginalizing even moderate voices. On the other, opponents of immigration frame the issue in dire and odious language, turning immigrants into a scapegoat for all of modern society’s ills.
To move forward, the debate must be addressed with a new framework, one that rejects ideological rigidity in favor of nuance. It must be a discussion where moderate, fact-based opinions can enter the fray without fear of ostracism, personal attacks, or accusations of racism and xenophobia.
Seeing the Elephant
A central paradox defines the West in the 21st century: as the stated ideals of our societies champion tolerance and universal values more fervently than ever, they are simultaneously witnessing an explosive rise of far-right, anti-immigrant political movements (Wall Street Journal, August 30, 2025). Mainstream analysis, often confined within a narrow ideological framework, struggles to explain this phenomenon without resorting to simplistic dismissals. The truth is that the crisis is not a simple rejection of liberal values, but a profound and predictable reaction to the liberal establishment’s own failures—a failure of policy, and more critically, a failure of discourse.
This liberal blind spot was on full display in a recent essay by anti-authoritarian thinker Garry Kasparov. He correctly diagnosed Europe’s drift toward the far-right, but attributed it primarily to the European Union’s institutional weakness and geopolitical timidity in the face of Russian aggression (Politico, August 3, 2025). Yet his analysis featured a glaring omission. In dissecting the causes of this populist surge, he completely sidestepped the elephant in the room: the immense social and cultural turmoil caused by mass, uncontrolled immigration.
Kasparov’s silence is not unique; it is representative of a broader, systemic refusal within the liberal establishment to honestly confront the primary internal driver of this political upheaval. The rise of the far-right in Europe and the nativist movement in the U.S. is not merely a reaction to immigration itself, but a direct consequence of the liberal elite's decision to shut down any honest, nuanced debate on the topic. By framing all criticism as bigotry and pushing legitimate concerns to the margins, liberals have created a political vacuum, alienated moderate citizens, and inadvertently fueled the very extremism they claim to oppose (Kammer, Jerry, 2020).
A Herd of Sacred Cows
The future of Europe and the world is alarming. A revolutionary situation is ripe, by the infamous definition coined by Lenin: the establishment “cannot,” and the people “do not want” to continue living in a state of perpetual economic and political anxiety driven by a constant influx of migrants. In several countries, the numbers have already exceeded the thresholds for successful assimilation, leading to serious and tangible social problems (Halla, Martin,2017. Campo, Federico, 2024 ). Yet, the current framework of discourse, policed by the liberal establishment, does not allow these problems to even be named. To do so is to self-marginalize, to instantly accept the wholesale, indiscriminate application of labels like “racist,” “xenophobe,” and “Islamophobe.”
Such limitations on the discourse in Europe and the West, in general, were forged in the aftermath of World War II, as the discussion itself was carefully structured and policed for the obvious reasons—to disallow the repeat of the rising populism and fascism. Paradoxically, as the time went by and the generations that remembered the woes of tyranny exited the stage, limitations on discussions have seemingly helped propel the very phenomenon they were designed to suppress.
This suppression of discourse is the core of the crisis. It created a rigid moral binary where any position short of unquestioning acceptance of all immigration was deemed illegitimate. The knee-jerk reaction was to accuse anyone—no matter their political camp or personal background—with little to no reflection or debate. It became a tactic that uniquely backfired by not only targeting conservatives but by marginalizing moderate citizens and even naturalized immigrants who dared to call for predictability and moderation in the process. By refusing to grant legitimacy to reasonable concerns about social cohesion, security, and the strain on public services, the liberal establishment pushed these voices out of the mainstream. This created a political vacuum that could only be filled by more radical parties, who became the sole outlet for these suppressed but widely held concerns, endorsing more radical positions than they arguably would have otherwise. In turn, radical right political parties hijacked the discourse, sensing widespread public disenchantment and distorting the initially moderate views of those who were forced to seek acceptance for their voice as a legitimate part of the political landscape (The Guardian, August 2, 2025).
This dynamic creates an impossible political environment for anyone seeking a middle ground. With the center pushed out of the conversation, moderate voices become targets for the fringes on both sides of the spectrum. Any attempt at a nuanced, pragmatic solution is attacked by extremists as "propagating half-measures"—a form of ideological betrayal. This crossfire effectively mutes the very possibility of a meaningful debate, leaving the public with a false choice between two untenable extremes.
It is no longer possible to pretend, as liberals have long forced us to through mass culture, that all newcomers easily become Britons, Germans, or even Americans, shedding their old and donning new cultural identities and adhering to the standards of societal and political behaviors of the host populations with ease. The liberal monopoly on the press and culture has been broken. The media, sensing demand for a new niche of political expression, diverged from the dogma, long accepted by liberals as the sole framework for expressing opinions, and created an outlet more eager and daring to reflect the public disenchantment (Oxford, 2023). The proliferation of social media, “people-to-people” communication platforms, as a rule, unconstrained by the directive to report verifiable fact and adhere to quality control, only sped up this trend, leaving the traditional media to play catchup (Pew Research Center, 2024).
While this new media landscape gave voice to some legitimate concerns, it also platformed the dangerously simplistic solutions proposed by the radical right and ardent defense of the status quo presented by the radical left as the only “humane” course of action. The idea of indiscriminately halting all immigration, for instance, is rife with dire economic consequences. Such a policy would lead to shrinking economies, gutted labor markets, and soaring production costs, especially in the agricultural and food processing sectors (USDA Economic Research Service, July 2025. Baker Institute, 2024. Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2024 ). It would dramatically exacerbate the crisis of plummeting birthrates by removing the only viable demographic supplement, leading to a vicious cycle of economic upheaval and political polarization that could ultimately destabilize the democratic social order itself. Continuing the status quo in perpetuity, on the other hand, has already led to cardinal electoral changes and internal conflict in a number of societies.
Conflating the notions of "economic migrants" and "political asylum seekers" has become another major flashpoint. The liberal Western elites, perhaps driven by a sense of internalized guilt over their contribution to climate change by eagerly participating in consumerist economies, seem to assign the same moral priority to two vastly different groups. On the one hand, there are the millions of economic migrants: people fleeing nations impoverished by changing weather patterns, as well as mismanagement, systemic corruption, and cronyism, where a decent life is impossible without political connections. On the other, there are asylum seekers with a well-founded fear of persecution: homosexuals fleeing violently homophobic societies or political dissidents escaping murderous regimes.
This conflation has confused and devalued the very concept of asylum, turning the term "asylum seeker" into a lightning rod for the political right. In practical terms, it put the equality sign between those fleeing adverse economic situations, even extreme poverty and imminent death due to sexual orientation and/or political and religious beliefs (European Union Agency for Asylum, August 2025). This lack of discernment has led to gumming up of the U.S. and European immigration and asylum-granting processes, inundating government bureaucracies and angering the electorates (U.S. Congressional Research Service, January 2025). The consequent situation allows the ideological opponents of immigration to question the validity of all claims by pointing to the misuse of the system, thereby undermining the truly desperate pleas of those running for their lives. Whether the conflict will be confined to a series of internal upheavals in nations with large immigrant populations or grow into something more sinister and cross-border, remains to be seen. With the very terms of the debate rendered meaningless, we find ourselves on the precipice of a serious conflict, born from a dialogue that never happened.
The Elephant's Long Shadow
This failure is not monolithic. Across Europe, different models of integration have been tried, and they have produced divergent failures. France, with its strictly secular and assimilationist model, demanded that immigrants shed their identities and become culturally French. The result has not been unity, but the formation of segregated, impoverished banlieues, deep social friction, and a recurring crisis of national identity (BBC News, July 2023). Germany, in contrast, for decades pursued a Gastarbeiter (guest worker) model, importing labor under the assumption that the workers would eventually return home. When they stayed, it led to the establishment of parallel societies, culturally and linguistically isolated from the mainstream (Hille Peter, 2021). Both approaches failed, but their distinct failures prove that the challenge of integration is far more complex than the simplistic pro- versus anti-immigration discourse allows.
The same problem manifests differently in the United States. While Europe is a captive of its cultural-ethnic rooted nationalism, the U.S. traditionally assimilated newcomers into a political and civic nationalism—a shared belief in the American idea. But even this more flexible model is now under immense strain. The sheer scale and pace of modern immigration have given rise to what is termed "demographic anxiety," and the debate is now cloaked in the racial overtones that make it even more frightening than the European discourse. The inability to speak about the problem aloud has led to an explosive reaction, fueling serious electoral changes and political reforms that only the willfully blind can fail to see ( Gallup, 2024. AP-NORC, January 2025).
This happened against the backdrop of a misguided narrative, pushed by some Democrats and other forces on the political left, that conflated specific immigrant rights with the all-encompassing concept of human rights. On its face, the latter is a readily accepted notion; after all, the wider U.S. ethos is "give me your poor," and no reasonable person would argue in favor of depriving people of their "inalienable rights," as reflected in the core principles of the Declaration of Independence that we, Americans hold dear. However, this distorted narrative led to the a priori granting of U.S. citizens' rights extraterritorially to all potential immigrants, legal or illegal, in the minds of uncontrolled immigration proponents. The final stage of this transformation became the mantra, "Our ancestors all came here, whether legally or illegally, so anyone has the right to do the same," ignoring or oversimplifying the issues stemming from the establishment of the nation state, national borders, and the primacy of the rule of law. The rejection of this narrative and its many versions became a powerful rallying cry for the Republican party, allowing it to collect all anti-immigrant voices and sentiments under a growing tent and pulling the party far to the right of its initial position (Associated Press, March 2025 ).
The pull of the societal division over immigration in the United States has become undeniable. So much so, then-candidate Donald Trump instructed his followers and Republican allies in the U.S. Congress to vote down the Biden administration’s last-ditch attempt at intermediate solution to the border crisis and immigration reform before the 2024 elections, opting to run his successful presidential campaign on the battle cry of the “broken Southern border” (with Mexico.) (Associated Press, 2024)
Perhaps the most telling case study is the one just beginning. Japan, arguably the last major liberal democracy to hold out against liberalizing its immigration policy, is now breaching a long-standing internal taboo. The nation, notorious for its restrictive and Byzantine immigration policies—where even spouses of Japanese nationals often lack a clear path to citizenship—is being forced to reconsider its stance by a daunting trio of crises: an aging population, economic stagnation, and a shrinking workforce (Financial Times, February 2025. Reuters, 2024. The Japan Times, July 2025. Reuters, August 2025 ). Proponents now openly call for liberalization as a necessary solution to plummeting birthrates and the urgent need for a younger generation to care for the elderly. However, this push for change is tempered by caution, as policymakers keep one eye on the social integration challenges experienced in Europe and North America. The argument of the opponents is also very clear: if it proves difficult for a Western Asian, African, or Middle Easterner to accept European cultural and political identity, it is infinitely more difficult, to the point of implausibility, that large numbers of immigrants will be able to absorb the high context culture of Japan. As a result, what was once a subject of national consensus in a traditionally insular society has become a fierce public debate—the very kind of debate the West has refused to have for a generation.
Turning on the Lights
The current situation is described by proponents and opponents of immigration in the West as being on the brink, in equally unnuanced, uncompromising terms: a choice between the political and cultural suicide of the liberal project or an explosion of populist emotion with equally terrifying consequences. As seen by the opposing camps and described with their rhetoric, Europe is facing an extinction of its ethnic and/or religious origins by adopting its irreversibly unrecognizable persona of diversity, or an uncontrolled explosion of populist emotion with unpredictable and terrifying consequences akin to mid-20th century catastrophe. Such characterizations leave very little room for moderation and detail.
For now, leaders of the mainstream right-wing parties of Europe—Meloni, Le Pen, Wilders—sit at the table with the establishment, largely playing by the rules of the liberal-democratic elites. But the time may come when the lapdog bites the master. European history has an example of the bourgeois-democratic elites playing poker with the right-wing forces, assured of their eventual co-option and waking up to see the bitter fruit of their delusions, alas, too late.
The liberal order has failed because it chose dogma over reality. Its failure is twofold: a failure of policy and, more importantly, a failure of discourse. However, history shows that Europe, in particular, possesses a unique capacity for renewal after immense crises. The ability of the same continent that had peacefulness and tolerance hammered into its head after World War II—forcing it to describe immigration and subsequent diversity only in rosy, superlative form—to self-correct and adopt a middle road should not be underestimated. Whether Europe can achieve this without the kind of drastic electoral makeover seen in the U.S. remains the crucial question. For both, however, their turbulent histories need not be a weakness, but a source of potential resilience.
On either side of the Atlantic, the future does not have to be a choice between two nightmares. The only way to preserve the liberal democratic project, with its invaluable protections for individual liberty and human dignity, is to rediscover the courage for honest and difficult dialogue. The elephant is in the room. It is time to turn on the lights or risk serious and unavoidable conflict.
Conclusion
As with most other issues faced by modern societies, the issue of immigration must be open to an honest and nuanced debate, the format of which does not easily yield itself to soundbites and ideologically rigid and simplistic constructs. The issue proved its upending potential for electoral politics in various Western democracies—from Germany to Italy to the United States. Both extremes exploit the anxieties of their populations to attain political goals but do very little to resolve challenges stemming from the lack of an honest, knowledge-based debate. Immigration is an issue that draws outrage clicks on both sides of the argument, but moderate debate is absent, from the floors of legislatures to media platforms.
Absent coherent dialogue and compromise, there is only chaos, fear, and potentially explosive electoral mandates that threaten the very fabric of liberal democracies. The onus is on liberals to finally allow a discussion within their own ranks—one that doesn't "shoot the messenger" or subject critics of the status quo to unfair accusations.
References
Luhnow, David, Valentina Pop, and Laurence Norman. “Populist Right-Wing Parties Lead Polls in Europe’s Biggest Economies.” Wall Street Journal, August 30, 2025. https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/right-wing-europe-dd4f1156
Kasparov, Garry and Gabrielius Landsbergis. "Europe’s Future Depends on Confrontation, Not Compromise." Politico, August 3, 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/08/03/europe-future-authoritarianism-00490010
Kammer, Jerry. “I’m a Liberal Who Thinks Immigration Must Be Restricted.” The New York Times, January 16, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/opinion/immigration-democrats.html
Halla, Martin, et al. “Immigration and Voting for the Far Right.” Journal of the European Economic Association 15, no. 6 (2017): 1341–1385. https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jeurec/v15y2017i6p1341-1385..html
Campo, Federico, et al. “Refugee Crisis and Right-Wing Populism: Evidence from the Italian Local Elections.” European Economic Review, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292124001557
Osuh, Chris. "A Hostile Environment: Language, Race, Surveillance and the Media." The Guardian, August 2, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/02/language-on-immigration-in-uk-news-and-politics-found-to-have-shaped-backlash-against-antiracism
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Digital News Report 2023. Oxford, 2023. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/Digital_News_Report_2023.pdf
Pew Research Center. “Social Media and News Fact Sheet.” September 17, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/
USDA Economic Research Service. “Farm Labor.” Updated July 7, 2025. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor
Baker Institute. “Feeding America: How Immigrants Sustain U.S. Agriculture.” July 19, 2024. https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/feeding-america-how-immigrants-sustain-us-agriculture
Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Immigration Policy Solutions to Shortages in Critical Sectors of the U.S. Economy.” November 25, 2024. https://www.csis.org/analysis/immigration-policy-solutions-shortages-critical-sectors-us-economy
European Union Agency for Asylum. “Latest Asylum Trends.” Accessed August 2025. https://euaa.europa.eu/latest-asylum-trends
U.S. Congressional Research Service. “FY2024 EOIR Immigration Court Data: Caseloads and the Pending Cases Backlog.” January 24, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12492
“France riots: Why do the banlieues erupt time and time again?” BBC News, July 3, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66071455
Hille, Peter. “In 1961, Germany needed workers and Turks answered the call.” Deutsche Welle, October 5, 2021. https://www.dw.com/en/the-german-turkish-recruitment-agreement-60-years-on/a-59398455
Gallup. “Immigration Surges to Top of Most Important Problem List.” February 27, 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/611135/immigration-surges-top-important-problem-list.aspx
AP-NORC. “2025: The Public’s Priorities and Expectations.” January 7, 2025. https://apnorc.org/projects/2025-the-publics-priorities-and-expectations/
AP-NORC / Associated Press. “Trump Is Stronger on Immigration and Weaker on Trade, an AP-NORC Poll Finds.” March 31, 2025. https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/trump-is-stronger-on-immigration-and-weaker-on-trade-an-ap-norc-poll-finds/
Associated Press. “Senate Republicans Block Bipartisan Border Deal.” February 7, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/congress-ukraine-aid-border-security-386dcc54b29a5491f8bd87b727a284f8
Financial Times. “Japan Births Fall to Lowest in 125 Years.” February 26, 2025. https://www.ft.com/content/95d3282e-daef-4670-b704-c1215393e7f8
Reuters. “Japan Faces Shortage of Almost a Million Foreign Workers in 2040, Think-Tank Says.” July 4, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/japan-faces-shortage-almost-million-foreign-workers-2040-think-tank-says-2024-07-04/
The Japan Times. “Japan to Start New Residency System for Foreign Workers.” July 28, 2025. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/07/28/japan/foreign-workers-new-residency-system/
Reuters. “Japan Should Debate Cap for Foreign Residents, Government Report Says.” August 29, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/japan-should-debate-cap-foreign-residents-government-report-says-2025-08-29/
