Create account

Families can also shrink, and it could be argued you should allow some bums into your house to adjust for this. To increase the household income. A bum may have some small allowance
replied · 337d
The funny part of that compairons is that often immigrants are the middle class who could afford to emigrate their nation, and set up in another. So bum doesn't really apply.
They may be bums, they may not. Just because they were rich at home does not mean they will be in their new country. Typically rather young boys come, and they are not workers/bums yet
replied · 337d
Sure, it is fine for people to come live in your home. Since you like this comparison I am sure you would hardly notice these people in your home as you have millions living there.
This is just totally off the scale. You are the one arguing in favor of importing (OK, since you are too dumb to understand that word, "allowing entrance of") immigrants.
replied · 337d
What do you know. Scale makes your comparison break down, just as I was saying.
No, "this is off the scale" as in very stupid statement. You ask others to accept immigrants, and now say it is fine for people to live in my home. The question is about YOUR home.
replied · 337d
Off the scale? As for my home country yes I like immigrants. I am one of the only white home owners on my street. Many other white people are renters in basement suites.
Fascinating story I'm sure. So, do you understand that I am asking you if you have invited bums to live in your living-room?
replied · 337d
I understand that. It is completely irrelevant to this issue of course. It shows just how much you dont understand what is being discussed.
You understand it, but still just talked as if it was about me accepting immigrants in my country or bums in my home. Do you hold your nose with one hand while typing this manure?
replied · 337d
You were he only one talking as if it was about accepting bums in your home. Are you acknowledging how shitty your idea was?
So you are back to repeating your unfounded assertion that my parallel is wrong I see. Shame on you.
replied · 337d
How could you see that as repeating my earlier points? Are you reading something else and then replying to the wrong comment? That I could understand. I was correcting you this time.
Wrong again. My idea that you should allow bums into your living area is directly based on the parallel that you have so much trouble with. It is quite simple from a logical pov
Do you want me to explain it to you? It is trivial, but I can explain it if you can't manage.
replied · 336d
Please do, especially since it is your misunderstanding that leads to his idea.
You think western democracies "must" accept immigrants. They come into our "home" (homeland), and the question then arises, what if they act like bums? Since you do not see the problem
I use the parallel of normal homes, and ask if you accept bums into your living area. Do you get it now?
replied · 336d
No wonder you cant actually see the issue. You are so hung up on people immigrating to western countries.
OK, you are claiming that western countries should allow immigration, and then you claim I can't actually see the issue because I am hung up on people immigrating to western countries
replied · 336d
Repeating your strawman. I've said it enough. You can argue or fail.
replied · 336d
Ah, that is where you are confused. I said all countries, not just western countries. Also it was about coming, and going. Not just western countries accepting immigrants.
Who said "just" western countries? Are western countries not part of "People should be free to go where they wish"?
replied · 336d
You already failed.
You didn't hear me. Why are you now talking about "just" western countries? What relevance does that have?
replied · 336d
I'm not. You are. I mentioned America because you kept wanting to make it about western countries. I was just mentioning it is un-American to be against immigration.
The only real political pressure to accept lots of refugees that I know about to is on western democracies. I cannot talk for other countries, so I talked about what I knew.
I do not try to make it about western countries, but when I make a statement that I am not sure goes for all countries, I naturally limit the list.
replied · 336d
I have seen many refugees express, in interviews on youtube, their gratitude to European countries and citizens for accepting them when their own muslim neighbors wouldn't.
replied · 336d
Western nations are some of the only nations that accept refugees as far as I know. My freedom of movement is more about nations that dont let people leave. North Korea for example.
What you said earlier was something to the effect that it was wrong to be against immigration. It seemed to cover the current resistance in western countries against mass immigration
replied · 336d
America was meant to be a bastion of freedom for people fleeing oppressive nations. Like I said, read what is written on the Statue of Liberty.
replied · 336d
That or in the case of the USA, which always had a policy of taking on refugees, and immigrants from all over. In the US is is almost cliche that immigrants come and start a business.
replied · 336d
Mass immigration isn't even a real thing. War refugees are a different issue though. Africa took in a lot of European refugees during the world wars so it is wrong for Europe to say no
First, I don't accept your assertion that mass immigration is not a real thing. You should show how it is not. Second, the large wave of immigrants that came to Europe recently...
replied · 335d
It isn't enough people to be considered "mass immigration." Also people returning home after fighting has settled down doesn't mean they were not refugees.
Enough people to become majority in a few decades is not mass immigration? You really think this? These are projections for current immigration policy for several western countries.
replied · 335d
The reason anyone else would become the majority is actually due to low birth rates of people from those nations. People dont have enough babies. People need to have at least 3.
If everyone did this, the population explosion would be a bigger and bigger problem. Also, it is not wrong for populations to shrink. We have been through this before. Did you forget?
replied · 335d
I know you showed your ignorance before.
OK. You keep being wrong, which not so bad, but then you are obnoxious about it, which is not fine. I noticed you backed off when I asked you to give me your best argument properly.
replied · 335d
I didn't back off. I'm just not repeating myself. I gave you the argument in the form of your formula, and the actual example laid out. I'm not going to dumb it down anymore.
Instead you spend your time being obnoxious
From what you have said so far it seems you want a even more liberal policy, where these countries would be flooded with immigrants in maybe one decade, until they broke down
replied · 335d
What makes you think everyone would move if they could? Most people like to stay home, unless home is not a good place to live.
Population explosions in Africa are projected to lead to much more people wanting to move than now actually. In general, Africa is not a good place to live compared to the west
Already there are quite some signs of what's to come. Sharia courts for example are in place today in Britain(not above British law, but still operating as if being legal institutions)
Or you could look to South Africa, where white farmers now are being killed for being white, even a politician singing from stage stuff that strongly suggests killing of whites.
replied · 335d
Most of this is actually fake news. The right are very susceptible to propaganda.
Your assertion. The singing is provable.

Used to be directly "kill the boer".
The left is just as susceptible to propaganda.
it was sold to us as refugees, but later it has been shown that the majority was not. Many go back to their home countries on vacation for example. Those who were refugees from long
ago, they mostly stay in the European countries even when wars stop in their home countries. They have not plans to go back. Very different from majority of WWI/II refugees
replied · 335d
Yeah, and if the new country offers better opportunities then they go for that. That is not a bad thing.
Whether it is a bad thing or not is not relevant. The point is it is different. Taking care of a group for a short while is very different from being stuck with them forever
replied · 335d
Those who dont return often left because of persecution. Those who return left because their homes were not safe. They are more likely to return after.
This is irrelevant. Se another reply.
replied · 335d
Nothing wrong with different at all.
So, I will use my parallel again. I let you stay in my house for 1 hour because you are cold. Then I demand that you now let me stay in your house forever. Fair?
Also, you really should read up on demographics for the region. Some estimates give muslim majority in about half a century. If you look at what trouble they already have with distinct
minorities, this is a very serious thing. Again you should watch the movie I linked to. It shows some of the things you can expect with radical Islam in a western country