China will never be a major destination for immigrants, because it simply won't allow them in (in large numbers, anyway).
when their population starts aging, we'll see.
Hmmmm... are you implying India is a shithole? If diversity is such a strength, India should at least be TRYING to attract immigrants.
this is that outgroup homogeneity issue again. youre making the assumption that i like diversity for the sake of diversity. india is developing. its like the USA right around 1900. we had overcrowded shitty cities then too. this is a process all countries go through.
So is Britain, but it still allows in masses of immigrants. And Japan is losing 300,000 people per year (it will eventually reach 1 million per year). There goes your argument.
japan's leaders have literally said that economic growth is no longer a national goal lol. they are seeking to maintain, and thats basically it.
South America is developed compared to Africa and other third world parts of the world. Point is though, why don't South American countries attempt to attract third world immigrants, ya know, if diversity is such a strength?
south america is already ultra diverse.
most people in africa/syria etc cannot get to south america even if they wanted to.
Third world immigrants would love to enter Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, South America etc etc if they could. But the point is, why aren't those parts of the world at least TRYING to attract third world immigrants, in the name of diversity (which I'm told is such a strength)?
have you seen tokyo? where would these immigrants go? england's population density is not comparable. and again......im not suggesting that places like england open the floodgates. im saying that they should take people they need.
Natural barriers? There's such a thing called the 'air plane'. Ever heard of it? Most of the third world immigrants over the past few decades into Europe have arrived via air travel. You can't be aware of that.
lol. you're being F'ing silly again. how much is airfare?
Like I said: the only countries that will see more Africans are the countries that allow them in. Countries like Japan, South Korea & Taiwan have no problem keeping them out. Because they never attract them in the first place. The reason Europe receives so many is because it goes out of its way to attract them.
thats a part of it, but also proximity. if japan were located where europe is, theyd have a much tougher time of it. it goes back to that mobility issue. most desperate migrants of the middle east, africa, and south america cannot F'ing walk or float to japan lol. you'd think this would be obvious, but i guess not.
It's disastrous for developing countries.
brain drain is also near inevitable. im not opposed to letting in a few albert einstein's from india and africa. if you want to keep them out because you feel so strongly for the countries that they leave behind, be my guest.
Immigrants get old too, so no, it doesn't help in the slightest. And there's already a lack of jobs for people already in Europe, and there's going to be far less jobs in the future. Bringing in third world immigrants means importing a permanent underclass.
what about now....NOW? italy's population is literally going backwards lol. their death rate exceeds their birth rate. they need people working NOW.
It's not about propaganda campaigns, it's about a total change in the culture. The only way to avert total collapse is to move back to a conservative, family value culture.
japan has tried propaganda, incentives, threats, begging......but none of it will change that basic math that i posted in the previous post. people....will.....not....make.....more.....babies.....against....their....own....personal....interests. denmark will never again exceed a fertility rate of 2. never. you can turn them into amish zealots and ban condoms, and it will not happen.
Because of religion, lack of education (especially women) & culture.
no. i explained it to you. its very simple.
every country has gone through this process. every one.
more agricultural economy = kids are an asset.
more urbanized industrial economy = you love your kids, but they are a financial burden.
its that simple. thats it.
Even in the cities, the fertility rate is still as high as 4.0.
right. the same thing happened in every other country initially. when you make that jump from rural agriculture to urban industry, it takes people one generation to realize......"holy shit. i shouldnt have 10 kids. theyre expensive as hell now. they cannot feed themselves on my farm. now I have to buy all of their food. now they have to go to school. school costs money. holy shit."
this is why in every single industrialized nation today, we had a shit ton of child labor for a while.
Because they are liberal, individualist, feminist & materialistic (worshipping money).
http://time.com/money/4629700/child-raising-cost-department-of-agriculture-report/
no lol. average cost of raising a kid in the USA is now estimated at $200k +. how much do you think it is in senegal? stop being silly.
This is a myth. They're only expensive if you want to spoil them.
lmao. see above.
Not if women stay home and raise children, which is by far the best system, and easily the most natural & beneficial - the man goes out to work, the woman stays home and takes care of the children & home.
this is a luxury that most people cannot afford in an industrialized economy. you may want your country to go back to 1950, but it cant, and it wont. its just math.
yet, you cannot explain how traditional values will suddenly make people overlook the fact that a child now costs 200k in the USA. you cannot explain how people in developed countries notice the fact that they have pensions and reitrement plans, not needing to rely on 8 kids to care for them. you cannot explain how traditional values will make many people in tokyo realize that they live in an apartment the size of a closet (literally), and cannot house 3 kids. shit......1 kid.
Because those parts of the world don't try to attract immigrants, because they DON'T want them.
immigrants try to move to places nicer than their country, as they always have. job opportunities. safety. no one from sengal wants to go to india. people are leaving india to go to other places. net out migration for a reason.
What the fuck does being an island have to do with anything? Britain & Ireland are being flooded with immigrants. They're islands. Your arguments are comically stupid.
are you stupid or what? most countries with LOTS of people leaving are coming from the middle east and africa. you can literally float on a piece of foam across these bodies of water and probably live. you can hitchhike and ride from algeria to croatia and not even see the water. can you get to japan from senegal if you made $100 as your salary last year? gtfo.
Of course culture changes, but not due to mass immigration which CAN be prevented. As I said, if the African population of Europe increases to 150-200 million by 2050, I won't be able to enjoy my life - life in Europe will be horrific.
Every single one of your arguments is feeble, laughable & invalid.
new yorkers in 1890 felt the same way about the irish. the horror. all of those drunk anarchist terrorists. how did they ever survive?
You're comparing the demographic transformation of Europe to the demographic transformation of the Americas? And you think that STRENGTHENS your argument? LOL
The Americas' demographics changed because of disease & conquest. The Native Americas never wanted it to happen. Had they been able to stop it from happening, they would have. Europeans today have the means to stop it from happening, but those choose not to.
im pointing out that cultures always change, and evidently, in a wide variety of ways with wide ranging outcomes.
The Mongols never migrated & took over China. What on earth are you talking about?
they took the place over and created the yuan dynasty. most chinese today have mongol blood in them, along with much of central asia and eurasia.
None of this has parallels to what is happening to Europe today.
yea it does. look at a map before ww2, and after ww2 in europe. nation states before.....multiethnic after. masses and masses and masses of economic migrants flooded the USA at different times.
You're all over the place. On one hand you claim there's nothing you can do, then you claim you should do everything in your power to stop it and implement strict immigration rules.
you can contain it and slow it. the notion that youre going to maintain some pure culture (that doesnt exist and never has) though, is silly.
