Would you support a 80 year ban on all immigration?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rnGlYG8UjFk
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

yes, the only people that migrate here are insane

Thanks for the input.

Self bump.

No, that's insane.
A lot of immigrants add value and are coming to do skilled work for a business or something.
I support extreme vetting rather than outright bans.

How many more people does your country really need?

yep

An entire human life time without new people would cause a new-found sense of belonging.

Its not a question of how many, but what kind.

youtube.com/watch?v=rnGlYG8UjFk

I think the number makes a difference.

Yes. Population will shrink some but per-capita wealth is likely to rise due to mechanisation and a likely shift to an economy based on export to the US even more so then we are now.

yes

Can we still deport illegals during the ban?

Not really I would rather have libertarianism

underrated

>Can we still deport illegals during the ban?

Of course.

The government would actually have to invest in it's people.

Anyone who is outright anti-immigration is completely fucking stupid

Almost as fucking stupid as people who think wanting to stop illegal immigration = anti-immigration

>Anyone who is outright anti-immigration is completely fucking stupid

Well from 1924-1965 you basically banned immigration.

Don't forget basically the first 80 years after the country was founded. The US has basically banned immigration about as often as it hasn't.

I really don't think traffic is America's biggest problem right now.

And even if we suppose it was, high-skilled immigrants could help us solve it. They would earn a high (taxable) income, and those taxes could be used to fund improvements to our infrastructure. (more highways with more lanes, also more rail as an alternative to traveling by car).

What about a renewed sense of American identity?

Do you think those NASA scientists got on the moon all by themselves, sunshine?
Some immigrants you want, some you need, some you can't afford to let the bad guys get their hands on first.
I appreciate the sentiment, but this is incredibly shortsighted. You can't tell what lies 80 years ahead

>Do you think those NASA scientists got on the moon all by themselves, sunshine?

No they had Germans.

Where are the German immigrants now?

I forgot to respond to the letter they sent me asking me if that was okay

Nobody seemed to mind.

No - I couldn't two shits if tomorrow 5 million white Canadians and Britons showed up tomorrow. I think every White South African that with a clean criminal history should be allowed in the country.

I'm only against nonwhite immigration.

If it wasn't paperclip or Mossad it was Russia

>I'm only against nonwhite immigration.

Could such a law pass?

there is literally nothing wrong with white immigrants

1) seems intangible and overrated.

2) America will never have an identity based on ethnicity- it is already too diverse for that, even if immigration ends today. So, if we are going to care about our "identity", it has to be based on something other than ethnicity. So I really don't see how stopping immigration makes it any harder to renew or enhance our sense of American identity.

*easier

Would a law that says "Only Whites" pass?

>sees youtube video.
>first thought: more highways, more lanes

you sir, have reached the pinnacle of retard evolution

congratulations

should my first though have been "kick out the brown ones, then traffic will be better"?

>"kick out the brown ones, then traffic will be better"?

Yes.

No no no, cause i want immigrate to us

Well how do we manage this?

no.

but you have clearly dodged his point about unsustainable population growth.

and I expect you to dodge my point as well by saying something along the lines of 'muh planet can easily support 19 trillion people' or some such unsupported idealogical tripe.

have a nice day!

If it's between this and what we currently have I would take the ban in a heart beat.

Thats good idea

>no.
not according to him. see >but you have clearly dodged his point about unsustainable population growth.
He never made any such point. But our population is not growing at an unsustainable rate- it's only .7% per year, and falling.

We' basically banned it for about 40 years last century.

What about a 50 year ban?

Yeah and America's gone to shit since then.

yes, worldwide ban

There is no point is speaking to someone who is incapable of comprehending simple concepts like scarcity, conservation of energy/mass.

In my socialist utopia of a nation, in our public schools, they teach us about these things when we are 16 years old.

I don't know whether to pity or fear the hordes of evangelical lunatics south of the 49th... It would probably be wise to do both.

>Be California
>Be a desert
>38.8 million people

0.7% per year doubles roughly every 100 years.

That's called exponential growth.

That's another thing our socialist public government education system teaches us about when we are 16 years old here - the exponential equation.

Perhaps you ought to look that up. Along with the definition of sustainable in the dictionary, and then get back to us.

Yes. Even whites from Europe. We need to deport the illegals and send home h1b's. Until every job is filled with an american worker and unemployment is non-existent, we don't need anyone else.

>is incapable of comprehending simple concepts like scarcity, conservation of energy/mass.
I don't know what I said that made you think that I didn't understand these things, but I do.
>evangelical
lol no.

>0.7% per year doubles roughly every 100 years.
That's why I pointed out that this rate is falling. 20 years ago it was 1.21%. Maybe in another 20 years it will be 0, and 20 more it may be negative, like Japan.

You do realize I'm not advocating for open borders or anything, right? I'm just saying that high-skilled immigrants are a good thing for our country.

Literal NatSoc pure aryan scientists can always come. Stop comparing apples to organges

We could work out some kind of deal with the rest of the world where net migration into/out of different countries is 0.

That way people could still travel or move to other countries if they wanted to.

Seems like a random number, but sure

Anything to get rid of Muslims. I don't care what race you are, but fuck your religion.

>I'm just saying that high-skilled immigrants are a good thing for our country.

We have high skilled Americans to fill the jobs needed. Don't belive (((them))) when they say this isn't so.

So a one world government?

the right to travel is a fundamental right of all human beings. govt. should not put up barriers to immigration except when absolutely necessary. its an inalienable right. undocumented immigration is a violation of tort, not a criminal offense, and should be subject to fines. anyone living within the borders of the us, or who is under us jurisdiction at a border location, is entitled to any and all rights afforded citizens, as the constitution is not a citizenist document. the only privilige i have as a citizen is to vote, and run for office. if undocumented immigrants can serve in the military, then they can fucking well be allowed to stay. ps 18 year olds should be allowed to drink. and we maintain our christian heritage by admitting refugees, whether economic OR political. its the decent thing to do. so fuck off fascists.

Fair enough.

Regarding Japan, a Japanese guy in another thread said something about negative growth along the lines of:

>I wake up every night in a cold sweat wondering how on earth I will deal with dropping property values and rising wages because of decreasing population

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with negative growth.

In a heartbeat

Not comparing anything to anything else.
Simply pointing out total immigration ban for 80 years is shortsighted

No... more like a trade agreement...

whatever. just thought of it now. I agree it sounds sketchy tho.

see

It was literally the law for all intents and purposes until 1965. No it couldn't pass right now. So here's what we push:
>dramatically less overall immigration
>bans on specific unassimilable populations (ie Muslim ban)
>very very high skill requirement. Not H1B level. O-level or higher. Mostly whites, asians and white-presenting hispanics anyway.
>no refugees of any kind. Refugee is code for non-white. Same goes for "asylum" "unaccompanied minors" or any other term invented by the open borders scum to hide hordes of third worlders
>no birthright citizenship. If your parents aren't citizens neither are you. This can happen with a good SCOTUS
>no chain migration! That visa is for you, not your wife, sister in law, her brother, 19 uncles and so on. "Family reunification" is code for hordes of non-white third worlders.

...then basically build the wall and deport them all. Maybe, just maybe, we can save the country.

inb4 muh demographics...
and please dont make me explain supply/demand

There are over 5 million job openings in the US. That's not (((them))), that's just data. The value of getting those jobs done would be good for America.

>There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with negative growth.
I agree with you completely on this matter, and I think the hysteria over Japan's declining population is rather overblown.

The only reason I brought it up was to counter the exponential growth claim.

How bout this long of a ban?

I suppose that could work too.

A total ban is probably an overreaction.
But a large reduction might help us regroup - take a breather and plan next steps.

only on migrants that arnt naturally beneficial
so doctors, professors, scientists, and other top performing people could come in

What about net immigration of 50,00 per year instead of 1,100,000

No. There should be a priority on Anglosphere Whites who will immigrate and produce children that can seamlessly integrate into Canadian culture.

What about immigration of 50,000/year instead of 1,100,000 per year?

What about only skilled immigrants from
>Canada
>USA
>UK
>Australia
>New Zealand
>Ireland

>The value of getting those jobs done would be good for America.

Not if the cost of hiring for those jobs is that wages are driven down overall.

Job openings are good in that it has the affect that wages are driven up.

We need to stop this race to the bottom mentality, and allow people to relax and enjoy the technology we've invented over the last century. And slowing immigration might just help to do that.

Also, a shrinking population also has the effect of reducing the price of food (because limited farmland means limited food supply).

No, that's too long.

That's a huge reduction. Might be hard to sell politically.

But the more you can reduce it, the better. At least from an economics perspective.

Why is it too long? What about 50 years?

Again, I mostly agree, slowing immigration would probably be a good thing, especially because we get a lot of low-skilled immigrants.

But there are tradeoffs, you lose the value of that job actually being done. So I wouldn't completely ban immigration.

>you lose the value of that job actually being done.

You already have 321 million how many more do you need?

yes obviously

anything would be better than the current immigration chaos we have now, it's all in one direction. From shitholes to the West.

Mass immigration is suicide.

>Skilled
>Ireland
Good one user

Not all jobs are equally valuable. A medical researcher, for example, could develop a new medicine for some previously incurable disease. (I'm not sure if that field in particular has very many openings, but that is just a hypothetical example of how a job being done can provide value for many citizens, often much more value than the average job.)

And there are other considerations.
Like if we don't allow these people in are they gonna genocide themselves or some other retarded nonsense in their home countries because they are overpopulated? And will that destabilize the world and end up fucking us up even worse eventually? I don't think that gives them enough credit. If it were up to me I'd give people a chance to figure things out for themselves and I bet they'd actually pull it off without any help from the west. And hell, even if they did stumble on the way, at least they wouldn't be able to blame anyone but themselves (i.e. point the finger at the west). So I'm fairly isolationist.

Says the Paki dick sucker.

Humm.. Really makes me think.

Watch this
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Again. How many Medical researches do you really need? Because... Your recent immigrants... They're not medical researchers.

fuck off fag. You actually think they bring skills we dont have?

>here are over 5 million job openings in the US. That's not (((them))), that's just data. The value of getting those jobs done would be good for America.

Look over how the unemployment rates are collected via ww w . bls . g o v / cps / cps_htgm . h t m and you tell me if you think they are reliable.

"the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.

There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals each month

The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and independent cities in the country first are grouped into approximately 2,000 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample of about 800 of these geographic areas to represent each state and the District of Columbia. The sample is a state-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each state.

A sample is not a total count, and the survey may not produce the same results that would be obtained from interviewing the entire population."

318.9 million people in the US and they're interviewing 110,000. Sorry. Unreliable. Living in an area that has been effected by mass immigration opens your eyes to how bad the situation is on all fronts.

Watch the last 30 seconds of the video. He's implying that we need to help the underdeveloped countries that immigrants come from in order to stop them from coming here. Why the fuck should we throw money at a country that is too fuck tarded to help itself?

He also is a believer (you can read his interviews or ama) that there are jobs in American that US citizens just won't don't and we would need to be heavily trained over a long time to do said jobs such as agriculture jobs. As if a manlet beaner has more strength or fortitude than a regular ol' white/american laborer.

He's implying that's what some people think.

FUck yeah I would support this. no more fucken chinks

No, that's fucking retarded.

Yes

We're already past the point of no return given reproductive rate differentials, domestic policies currently stacked against us and age of population. Not only do we need a full stop, we need to actually repatriate several million back.

Why?

A forever ban

yes, right after I migrated

>Shortage of a certain profession
>People of that profession want to move to the UK
>lol no fuck off we're not letting anyone in for 80 years.

Also

>British guy falls in love with Australian woman
>Want to get married
>lol no fuck off no immigration for another 80 years.

There is good immigration. A complete ban makes absolutely no sense.

It's totally not our problem if they mismanage their own affairs and end up eating each other. You can't save the world. The idea of the White Man's Burden is dead because we didn't know about actual extant racial differences back then during the days of the British Empire.

It's not our job to spend massive amounts of blood and treasure to uplift the other peoples of the world. We have our own concerns and issues, and perhaps we can try to help a little when those are taken care of.