141–147 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering mass immigration in terms of increasing worker pools presupposes that the mass immigrants are workers.
They will quickly starve if they dont provide means to feed themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this the part you're referring to: "Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work." Sorry, no, I don't want migrants deeply afflicted with weird cultures left alone with my baby nor my mother.
> Is this the part you're referring to: > "Unskilled migrants care for babies or the elderly, thus freeing the native-born to do more lucrative work." No, it's this: > Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily. Some 138m would settle in the United States, 42m in Britain and 29m in Saudi Arabi…
This is not how it works in Germany: migration proponents want tax paying citizens to sustain their utopic dream. Once they have to pay out of their own pocket, the position changes drastically.
Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression. Think of how insane a proposal to limit people moving from a state to another in the US would be, how many arguments would be concocted against that, but so many arguments in favour of international restrictions. I have no doubts that free movement would have drastic positive economic and social effects. What is truly incredible is how adamant people can be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression. That seems quite naive, to the point of outright stupidity. If I was a large nation state with a very large population, it would be very easy to take over another smaller nation by just migrating a huge population to that country. This was used by the USSR post-takeover in many of their satellite states. Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is s…
> If I was a large nation state with a very large population, it would be very easy to take over another smaller nation by just migrating a huge population to that country. This was used by the USSR post-takeover in many of their satellite states. That is always true. Its called an invasion, and the rules of warfare and immigration are pretty different. > Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is silly becau…
And if the bigot/intolerant guy then throws acid in the face of your sister because she's wearing a skirt that's too short, for example? We see this quite often in London and other enriched European cities.
Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression. Think of how insane a proposal to limit people moving from a state to another in the US would be, how many arguments would be concocted against that, but so many arguments in favour of international restrictions. I have no doubts that free movement would have drastic positive economic and social effects. What is truly incredible is how adamant people can be…
Hello from Germany. We effectively have "free" movement of people from Africa to Europe. Once they're ashore, we can't readily send them back. We also used to have movement from Iraq and Syria through Turkey, but that was curbed. We took in about a million refugees and we did not manage to integrate well over 90%+ into any form of employment. We don't have jobs for these people. It has cost us about 20 billion in 201…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They will quickly starve if they dont provide means to feed themselves.
In Germany a healthy young migrant coming from a country that is not at war gets more money per month in welfare help than retired teachers get in Romania. What is their incentive to work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Germany a healthy young migrant coming from a country that is not at war gets more money per month in welfare help than retired teachers get in Romania. What is their incentive to work?
Might be a great argument against welfare