Instead of being anti-immigrant understand why they come.

Immigration is not a solution to global poverty, refugees, etc.

If everyone in the world was equal we would all be poor. There would be no first world anymore. There are too many people and too few resources.

The first world country is a luxury that we can only hold for so long. As world economies equalize, there will be no more middle class.

Thats silly even poor countries have improved their standards. We have no clue about future tech, 100 years ago nobody would imagine how much modern crops would produce, in another 100 years energy/food could be done in another way completly.
 
Thats silly even poor countries have improved their standards. We have no clue about future tech, 100 years ago nobody would imagine how much modern crops would produce, in another 100 years energy/food could be done in another way completly.
ok so what, in the meantime
HEZeuGA.png
 
I understand why they come and I still don't want a tidal wave of foreigners who have little incentive to integrate.
 
Oh we should feel so guilty because of our culture and history. We conquered other countries in the past, boo hoo! Fuck off then!
You wouldn't have this great life in the west if it wasn't for our history. I get sick and tired of wankers moaning and saying how bad we are. They have no idea how lucky they are, most of the world is shit.

Thank you!!! Finally someone with a fucken brain. Be proud to be living the good life in the West you fuckers!!
 
I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-muslim. If 100,000 North Koreans were brought over to Canada today I would welcome them. We can hold off on the Somalian muslim immigrants though for a few more....well centuries.
 
At least we don't kick them. We want to build a wall to politely show them how we feel.



image-894371-galleryV9-uqjh-894371.jpg
 
We don't need these folks to make America worse, we have republicans and the religious south for that.

I'll take a Cuban over an evangelical any fucking day of the week.

You mean you will take a catholic over an evangelical.
 
In Portland the government made it welcoming to homeless population, now we are neck deep in homeless people, they move here just because they know they can get free shit. Now it's like fucking mad max, it's insanity really. Crime, hard drugs, and shit and piss everywhere. And these are Americans, I can only imagine folks who are used to that life coming here, no thanks
 
Enjoy the ride ladies. Hope you're all single and that what is bound to happen doesn't fall onto the next generation.
 
The reasons matter not to right wing followers. They are racists. They will attach to any justification for their racism no matter how attenuated or irrational.

They don't want immigrants in 'their' country.
 
I want to let them in though. You don't speak for all of us

That's the beauty of America, you have the right and the freedom to do just that. Feed them, house them, clothe them. Invite however many you want. As long as they're your responsibility.

You don't get to do it on behalf of society as a whole if the said society doesn't want to.
 
Colonization never ended for the US and it's EU partners. They just do it more sophisticated since WW2 and Geneva conventions which prevent naked aggression and theft - instead overthrow governments covertly which have to will of the people in mind and install western hirelings to sell resources cheap to Western Corps. This leaves poverty and destitution along with radical terror groups in countries affected.

Here is a journal article which details one way it's done in case of Libya in 2011. It's long so I'll just post abstract here and you can follow link if you want the whole story.

"

In the wake of the “Arab Spring” revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt in late 2010 and early 2011, the conventional narrative, at least in the Western media, soon became one of an unstoppable tidal wave of emancipation. This was expected to leave no stone unturned, at least in the decaying Arab republics, which many academics continued to argue were structurally weaker than the region's monarchies.1

In this context, the Benghazi uprising in eastern Libya in February 2011 was widely portrayed as the start of yet another revolution — both nationwide and organic — that would soon see Muammar Qadhafi's regime swept from power by an overwhelming majority of the population. As the weeks dragged on, however, with Qadhafi still effectively in power and the bulk of the Libyan armed forces apparently remaining loyal, this narrative had to be abandoned and replaced by a new one depicting a desperate regime clinging to power by wielding extreme violence against its people and deploying vicious foreign mercenaries. Certainly, by March 2011 it was generally assumed that Qadhafi's fighters, whoever they were, would massacre thousands of civilians if they managed to re-enter Benghazi, and if the Western powers and their regional allies did not step up to the plate with some sort of humanitarian intervention on behalf of the “Libyan revolution.”

Although at the time several analysts did try to question the details underpinning these two interlinked narratives,2 it took more than five years before any real willingness emerged in Western government circles to investigate more thoroughly the events of 2011. Published in September 2016, for example, a British parliamentary report recognized that the eventual NATO-led intervention (Operation Unified Protector) had gone badly wrong and conceded that the intelligence it was based on was not necessarily credible in the first place. Entitled “Libya: Examination of Intervention and Collapse and the UK's Future Policy Options,” it drew the conclusion that former British Prime Minister David Cameron was primarily to blame for the ensuing chaos in the wake of Qadhafi's removal, due to “his decision-making in the [UK] National Security Council” and his “failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”3 But beyond this superficial and heavily politicized reading of the Libya conflict, which offered little insight into its root causes or the real objectives of Britain and the other intervening external powers, a substantial body of evidence has now emerged that allows for a much deeper understanding of the Libyan uprising and the NATO intervention. In particular, the contents of hundreds of recently declassified files, court-subpoenaed materials and leaked official correspondence strongly suggest that the two mainstream narratives of 2011, and even the British parliament's belated findings, have largely obscured the real reasons behind Qadhafi's removal and the methods used to make it happen.

After necessarily situating the Libyan conflict in its proper historical context and then identifying the patterns behind the numerous earlier attempts to remove Qadhafi from power, this article will draw heavily on this extensive and now accessible new evidence to demonstrate how the 2011 Arab Spring phenomenon was soon manipulated by external actors to provide diplomatic cover for the calculated dismantling of a Libyan regime that had remained largely resistant to the opening up of its economy to Western investment and, inconveniently, was still able to count on a significant domestic support base. Furthermore, it will be shown that, by this stage, the Libyan regime had not only failed to establish itself as a reliable partner in the long-running U.S. “War on Terror,” but had actually emerged as one of the strongest voices opposing the expansion of NATO and U.S. military power onto the African continent.

Within this more nuanced framework, the article will also reveal how the Western powers’ regime-change agenda in Libya in 2011 was to a great extent shielded from public scrutiny, with some of the most significant and visible roles being assigned to key regional Arab allies. In this sense, mindful of the ongoing domestic backlash to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and wary of further international criticism of their Middle East policies, the Western powers this time made sure to orchestrate better a web of compliant Arab proxies that could effectively provide most of the financing and on-the-ground logistical and intelligence support for those Libyans who were willing to oppose the regime, even if they were in a minority and even if their Arab Spring or “pro-democracy” credentials were impossible to verify or completely non-existent."

Full article here
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mepo.12310/full


And a list of countries USA has done similar to.

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
  • China 1949 to early 1960s
  • Albania 1949-53
  • East Germany 1950s
  • Iran 1953 *
  • Guatemala 1954 *
  • Costa Rica mid-1950s
  • Syria 1956-7
  • Egypt 1957
  • Indonesia 1957-8
  • British Guiana 1953-64 *
  • Iraq 1963 *
  • North Vietnam 1945-73
  • Cambodia 1955-70 *
  • Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
  • Ecuador 1960-63 *
  • Congo 1960 *
  • France 1965
  • Brazil 1962-64 *
  • Dominican Republic 1963 *
  • Cuba 1959 to present
  • Bolivia 1964 *
  • Indonesia 1965 *
  • Ghana 1966 *
  • Chile 1964-73 *
  • Greece 1967 *
  • Costa Rica 1970-71
  • Bolivia 1971 *
  • Australia 1973-75 *
  • Angola 1975, 1980s
  • Zaire 1975
  • Portugal 1974-76 *
  • Jamaica 1976-80 *
  • Seychelles 1979-81
  • Chad 1981-82 *
  • Grenada 1983 *
  • South Yemen 1982-84
  • Suriname 1982-84
  • Fiji 1987 *
  • Libya 1980s
  • Nicaragua 1981-90 *
  • Panama 1989 *
  • Bulgaria 1990 *
  • Albania 1991 *
  • Iraq 1991
  • Afghanistan 1980s *
  • Somalia 1993
  • Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
  • Ecuador 2000 *
  • Afghanistan 2001 *
  • Venezuela 2002 *
  • Iraq 2003 *
  • Haiti 2004 *
  • Somalia 2007 to present
  • Honduras 2009
  • Libya 2011 *
  • Syria 2012
  • Ukraine 2014 *
1) why don't you type your own thoughts instead of copying and pasting?
2) why don't you treat your own home the way you want to treat the country?

Take the locks off your doors. Let any homeless person or immigrant seeking better conditions come through your doors and house and feed them.
 
The reasons matter not to right wing followers. They are racists. They will attach to any justification for their racism no matter how attenuated or irrational.

They don't want immigrants in 'their' country.

They don't want brown immigrants. When you make blanket accusations, at least get it right.
 
The main problem, OP, is that these coups and plots ( some of them extremely oversimplified BTW) were made by politicians and agencies and the ones dealing with the consequences of immigration are the regular joes. As a legal immigrant who worked in social work, I can tell you that :

1- obviously there is a Huge difference between educated and uneducated immigrants and between countries of origin.

2- the vast majority of immigrants I worked with have potato social and life skills, and should have stayed in their villages if they are not willing to learn things like not stabbing people just because you don't like someone.

You might be the first person I've read to have first hand experience on this topic....
good point in mentioning the lack of assimilation(to at least the laws of the land) and the value they do/don't bring to the US society with their education/skill level.

The irony is that for many western nations; self-sustainment ability (large sums of savings and personal wealth, job skills and sponsorships that meet a need of the country, etc.) Are deciding factors as to who gets granted a visa or access to the country... It's not just an anti-immigrant American mindset, but a rational process as to who gets to come here.
 
Colonization never ended for the US and it's EU partners. They just do it more sophisticated since WW2 and Geneva conventions which prevent naked aggression and theft - instead overthrow governments covertly which have to will of the people in mind and install western hirelings to sell resources cheap to Western Corps. This leaves poverty and destitution along with radical terror groups in countries affected.

Here is a journal article which details one way it's done in case of Libya in 2011. It's long so I'll just post abstract here and you can follow link if you want the whole story.

"

In the wake of the “Arab Spring” revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt in late 2010 and early 2011, the conventional narrative, at least in the Western media, soon became one of an unstoppable tidal wave of emancipation. This was expected to leave no stone unturned, at least in the decaying Arab republics, which many academics continued to argue were structurally weaker than the region's monarchies.1

In this context, the Benghazi uprising in eastern Libya in February 2011 was widely portrayed as the start of yet another revolution — both nationwide and organic — that would soon see Muammar Qadhafi's regime swept from power by an overwhelming majority of the population. As the weeks dragged on, however, with Qadhafi still effectively in power and the bulk of the Libyan armed forces apparently remaining loyal, this narrative had to be abandoned and replaced by a new one depicting a desperate regime clinging to power by wielding extreme violence against its people and deploying vicious foreign mercenaries. Certainly, by March 2011 it was generally assumed that Qadhafi's fighters, whoever they were, would massacre thousands of civilians if they managed to re-enter Benghazi, and if the Western powers and their regional allies did not step up to the plate with some sort of humanitarian intervention on behalf of the “Libyan revolution.”

Although at the time several analysts did try to question the details underpinning these two interlinked narratives,2 it took more than five years before any real willingness emerged in Western government circles to investigate more thoroughly the events of 2011. Published in September 2016, for example, a British parliamentary report recognized that the eventual NATO-led intervention (Operation Unified Protector) had gone badly wrong and conceded that the intelligence it was based on was not necessarily credible in the first place. Entitled “Libya: Examination of Intervention and Collapse and the UK's Future Policy Options,” it drew the conclusion that former British Prime Minister David Cameron was primarily to blame for the ensuing chaos in the wake of Qadhafi's removal, due to “his decision-making in the [UK] National Security Council” and his “failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”3 But beyond this superficial and heavily politicized reading of the Libya conflict, which offered little insight into its root causes or the real objectives of Britain and the other intervening external powers, a substantial body of evidence has now emerged that allows for a much deeper understanding of the Libyan uprising and the NATO intervention. In particular, the contents of hundreds of recently declassified files, court-subpoenaed materials and leaked official correspondence strongly suggest that the two mainstream narratives of 2011, and even the British parliament's belated findings, have largely obscured the real reasons behind Qadhafi's removal and the methods used to make it happen.

After necessarily situating the Libyan conflict in its proper historical context and then identifying the patterns behind the numerous earlier attempts to remove Qadhafi from power, this article will draw heavily on this extensive and now accessible new evidence to demonstrate how the 2011 Arab Spring phenomenon was soon manipulated by external actors to provide diplomatic cover for the calculated dismantling of a Libyan regime that had remained largely resistant to the opening up of its economy to Western investment and, inconveniently, was still able to count on a significant domestic support base. Furthermore, it will be shown that, by this stage, the Libyan regime had not only failed to establish itself as a reliable partner in the long-running U.S. “War on Terror,” but had actually emerged as one of the strongest voices opposing the expansion of NATO and U.S. military power onto the African continent.

Within this more nuanced framework, the article will also reveal how the Western powers’ regime-change agenda in Libya in 2011 was to a great extent shielded from public scrutiny, with some of the most significant and visible roles being assigned to key regional Arab allies. In this sense, mindful of the ongoing domestic backlash to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and wary of further international criticism of their Middle East policies, the Western powers this time made sure to orchestrate better a web of compliant Arab proxies that could effectively provide most of the financing and on-the-ground logistical and intelligence support for those Libyans who were willing to oppose the regime, even if they were in a minority and even if their Arab Spring or “pro-democracy” credentials were impossible to verify or completely non-existent."

Full article here
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mepo.12310/full


And a list of countries USA has done similar to.

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
  • China 1949 to early 1960s
  • Albania 1949-53
  • East Germany 1950s
  • Iran 1953 *
  • Guatemala 1954 *
  • Costa Rica mid-1950s
  • Syria 1956-7
  • Egypt 1957
  • Indonesia 1957-8
  • British Guiana 1953-64 *
  • Iraq 1963 *
  • North Vietnam 1945-73
  • Cambodia 1955-70 *
  • Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
  • Ecuador 1960-63 *
  • Congo 1960 *
  • France 1965
  • Brazil 1962-64 *
  • Dominican Republic 1963 *
  • Cuba 1959 to present
  • Bolivia 1964 *
  • Indonesia 1965 *
  • Ghana 1966 *
  • Chile 1964-73 *
  • Greece 1967 *
  • Costa Rica 1970-71
  • Bolivia 1971 *
  • Australia 1973-75 *
  • Angola 1975, 1980s
  • Zaire 1975
  • Portugal 1974-76 *
  • Jamaica 1976-80 *
  • Seychelles 1979-81
  • Chad 1981-82 *
  • Grenada 1983 *
  • South Yemen 1982-84
  • Suriname 1982-84
  • Fiji 1987 *
  • Libya 1980s
  • Nicaragua 1981-90 *
  • Panama 1989 *
  • Bulgaria 1990 *
  • Albania 1991 *
  • Iraq 1991
  • Afghanistan 1980s *
  • Somalia 1993
  • Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
  • Ecuador 2000 *
  • Afghanistan 2001 *
  • Venezuela 2002 *
  • Iraq 2003 *
  • Haiti 2004 *
  • Somalia 2007 to present
  • Honduras 2009
  • Libya 2011 *
  • Syria 2012
  • Ukraine 2014 *

I'm sympathetic to immigrants, but your headline is akin to

Instead of being pissed at the guy that mugged you, try to understand why he did it.

Instead of being mad at Maddoff, try understanding why he was ripping off people.

Instead of being upset that a cop shot you while unarmed, try understanding why the cop did it. - hint: he just wanted to get home.
 
Back
Top