Thank you, John! My personal assumption is that the pendulum will be swinging back and forth over the next few decades, each time with a greater force multiplier. The new consensus 100 years after the end of WWII might be a very different world to the one envisioned right after.

Very true.

Eurostat data on Greek citizens: bsky.app/profile/gree...

Amazing!

That is very true, we are in agreement!

I do agree that this is step up for sure!

That's not really true. Europe is switching gears, both at a national and at a EU level. This is not just a Greek (or Mitsotakis) exception.

www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/gobi...

home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/italy-n...

etias.com/articles/eu-...

carnegieendowment.org/research/202...

Regardless of personal preference, my point is that this types of decisions with regards to mass migration, rather than Orban-like exceptions as some might paint them, are actually much more common and pragmatic dilemmas for the West (primarily EU and US). Which is why we might see the law changing.

I am not a big fan of moral relativism, but at the same time, when circumstances change policymakers/states often end up shifting their thinking as well. This is how we got women voting rights in the 20th century and gay marriage in the 21st (both considered illegal just 2 centuries ago).

Rule of law is not static, it changes, that's my point. We have seen that take place more recently in the US. Where we draw the line for basic humanity might differ btwn people (i.e. ask the same question to a Greek worker making minimum wage living in Omonia vs an open-borders advocate from Ekali).

That is one POV. Another is that legal statutes that have been agreed in a very different world 100 years ago might end up changing due to the new reality of the day. Rule of law is a social construct and often a sign of the times (laws, in fact, change every year).