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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
