Create account

replied 1984d
I understand that. It is completely irrelevant to this issue of course. It shows just how much you dont understand what is being discussed.
replied 1984d
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 1984d
You were he only one talking as if it was about accepting bums in your home. Are you acknowledging how shitty your idea was?
replied 1983d
So you are back to repeating your unfounded assertion that my parallel is wrong I see. Shame on you.
replied 1983d
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.
replied 1984d
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
replied 1984d
Do you want me to explain it to you? It is trivial, but I can explain it if you can't manage.
replied 1983d
Please do, especially since it is your misunderstanding that leads to his idea.
replied 1983d
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
replied 1983d
I use the parallel of normal homes, and ask if you accept bums into your living area. Do you get it now?
replied 1983d
No wonder you cant actually see the issue. You are so hung up on people immigrating to western countries.
replied 1983d
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 1983d
Repeating your strawman. I've said it enough. You can argue or fail.
replied 1983d
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.
replied 1983d
Who said "just" western countries? Are western countries not part of "People should be free to go where they wish"?
replied 1983d
You already failed.
replied 1983d
You didn't hear me. Why are you now talking about "just" western countries? What relevance does that have?
replied 1983d
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.
replied 1983d
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.
replied 1983d
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 1983d
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 1983d
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.
replied 1983d
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 1983d
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 1983d
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 1983d
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
replied 1982d
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 1982d
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.
replied 1982d
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 1982d
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.
replied 1982d
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 1982d
I know you showed your ignorance before.
replied 1982d
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 1982d
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.
replied 1982d
Instead you spend your time being obnoxious
replied 1982d
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 1982d
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.
replied 1982d
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
replied 1982d
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)
replied 1982d
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 1982d
Most of this is actually fake news. The right are very susceptible to propaganda.
replied 1982d
Your assertion. The singing is provable.

Used to be directly "kill the boer".
The left is just as susceptible to propaganda.
replied 1982d
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
replied 1982d
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 1982d
Yeah, and if the new country offers better opportunities then they go for that. That is not a bad thing.
replied 1982d
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 1982d
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.
replied 1982d
This is irrelevant. Se another reply.
replied 1982d
Nothing wrong with different at all.
replied 1982d
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?
replied 1982d
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
replied 1982d
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