What would be so bad about a 3% inmigrant policy?

What would be so bad about a 3% inmigrant policy?

That means each year you'd only accept the number of inmigrants that makes 3% of the newborns of your country.

Why does no party makes it that way?
You can claim you are for diversity but also national identity and to not use inmigrants to lower wages.

Why would people be agaits it?

Other urls found in this thread:

rsq.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/3/53.abstract
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because I want 0% darkies around me.
What's so hard to understand about that?

They will come from other nations, not just brownies.

I agree with a policy like this. But imagine the outrage!

> and to not use inmigrants to lower wages.

You do know thats the only reason for immigration, right?
Do you think we let them in because we feel sorry for them or something?

No immigrants

Immigration just lowers wages and destroys social cohesion.

refugees have a human right to asylum
3% a year?
ppl don't have to wait and risk death just because it makes some ppl uncomfortable

No but you could use that to make workers vote you and say the socialist party are againts the peple they say they defend.

You shouldn't take in immigrants just to take them in. If you want immigrants who will assimilate than you have to set standards.

that was an idea I proposed to a local party. A cap at 3-4% of population with an immigration background and a 1 child policy for immigrants.
That way if your total population increases you can allow in more immigrants, while if it decreases you can repatriate some of them

>refugees have a right to asylum

no, they dont

Syrian wars is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and USA and Russia and it's those countries the onese that should be held responsible.
If we follow that example countries would think twice before stating bombing places because they would be the ones paying for it.

Some immigrants can fill shortages for particular jobs. Not all immigration is bad.

Only mass migration does any of this. If you keep the numbers reasonable, there's no issue.

I wouldn't mind this if the immigrants were 2.9% European and 0.1% East Asian

you should contact the un cause they must have made a mistake

3% growth rate means a doubling time of roughly 24 years you utter dingus. Do you people have absolutely no concept of math or what percent over time leads to? Seriously, you would need to downscale you values by multiple orders of magnitude. THIS is why people shouldn't have a say in government, damn fools can't even do basic arithmetic.

>1 child policy for immigrants.
This is never going to fly. Just restrict immigration further if they're having too many kids.

I agree
other wise they will do whatever they want and everyone else pays

I don't remember any referendum anywhere where people signed that.

Can you not read? He said 3% of that year's native new borns not total population.

>3% growth rate means a doubling time of roughly 24 years you utter dingus.
what?
3% of the newborns of each year, not 3% of the population.

The problem isn't the number of immigrants, but the quality. The US was just fine taking in loads of micks, krauts, and wops in the 19th century even if the micks are a little substandard. However, taking in loads of North Africans, Arabs, or Brazilians just wouldn't work.

The man in your image, Korwin-Mikke, agrees. If people want to come to a country to be productive citizens, good. If they want to come for welfare or to conquer you, not good.

>not just brownies
That still means some brownies, which I don't want.
From your OP it seems that you think countries are obliged to at least pretend they want multiculturalism. They aren't, you can say no to that shit.
There's a small natural flow of skilled workers coming here from other European countries. Anything above that is forced shit we don't need.

they didn't tell you?
oh my

rsq.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/3/53.abstract

"human rights" means white genocide no joke

Let's be realistic here for a second.

Why not restrict immigration to highly educated, utterly intergratable, Europeans?

Oh and fuck Korwin, the faggot supports child pornography and selling state property to the jews

I'd withdraw of human rights chart the first day in office.

You're not going to get anyone on here to be realistic. They actually believe they'll be able to write laws that specifically exclude brown people forever just because they feel like it.

I got a better idea, how bout stop making refugees?

Immigration is a two sided coin. A lot depends on where the immigrants come from. In the UK we have had waves of European immigrants (Poles and Romanians) who work fucking hard and also have hot women. I'm 46 and I had a 23 year old Romanian girlfriend last year who was fit as fuck. I get my car washed by the Poles at the hand car wash for £5. Most brits would rather stay in bed and claim benefits than work in that kind of jobs. The Romanian whores are also fitter than the UK ones and charge less too. I don't want Snack bar Muslims or Africans so much, but I'm happy with Europeans and Asians who work fucking hard and contribute

Immigration should be done on a case by case basis. We are living in ruined economies with massive unemployment (10,51 millions in France alone), so the only way for a migrant to come in should be if he has at the very least an engineering degree or some doctorate and fills a position that the employer will have to prove that no one else in the country could fulfill. Ie, there would be like 10 migrants entering the country every year, and they would all be white.

Why would people be against it? Because they have been brainwashed to be good socialists, and a good socialist wants to see his country invaded by millions of brown and black bulls.

In America this would mean we would receive roughly 125000 people per year, given the current birth rates. In just eight years you've allowed a million immigrants in, this value increases because any children they have would now, legally, be qualified as "native born". This only leads to more immigrants in the long run. You need a policy that reduces immigrant flow, that just incentives the first generation to fuck like rabbits. Unless you're about to tell me countries will begin only allowing in immigrants of specific (i.e. European) backgrounds, and yeah, fuck you and your fantasy system.

>supports child pornography
No, he just thinks the state shouldn't detain you for having some images on the computer.
I really don't get why is legal to have a folder of dead children and illegal to have one with nude ones.
Pedophiles that abuse children would continue to be jailed in ideal corbyn's country

Even Trump's proposed immigration reforms, which lets admit aren't even clear, are as restrictive as this. It's actually just your system that is fantasy. If you want to continue the hundreds of thousands of illigals getting into the country and prefer that to qualified legal immigrants, then that's on you.

*aren't

its entirely a muh feels issue. only the most women/jew run countries make laws like that because they are eternally terrified

3%...if only...

How about 200% of all newborn in your country?

But you are a european country, shouldn't be hard to do that.
Even mexicans have european blood.

3% of the 3% to be non european
How about that?

Might as well have none at all. No one is going to go for racially motivated selection. Just make the requirements stringent and less non-whites shill get it.

priorities priorities

FPBP

Why 3% and not 0%?

A once sided immigration policy is genocidal.

What do you mean, realistic?
The reality is that the migrants coming towards Europe now would never acquire citizenship or even a residence permit through normal means. Why would we let them in then?
Nobody stops them from trying to move here through the proper channels, without making up bullshit claims about their refugee status. Why hasn't any one of them tried that?

whites have been doing genocide all over the planet for 100's of years, all the sudden whites are worried? boo fucking hoo

and it's not like all whites think we should stop or anything, right?

"whites" have not. european elite have and they are perfectly willing to genocide european poors just as they were genociding shitskin poors because borders go two ways, if they can break them down on us they can walk over to the other side and control that too. its the same game as it always has been, genociding the poors and you only like it now because you are indoctrinated with racial hatred for white people

>says the child of a Maoist enjoying Canadian wealth

king leopold never set foot in congo, yet 10 million ppl got killed. someone did it

other blacks mostly

what would you with the extra ?

bs

>Spend 30 billion a year to end world hunger
>Poor people are now 20 billion
>Biggest hunger in galactic history.
>World collapses

it's like the whites of Zimbabwe whining about white genocide

Bullshit, there were more white people in the world on percentage before the so called imperialism.

Leopold did nuffin ring he WUZ just tryna bild sum monuments 4 his country na im sayin? We need mo money 4 da Union

>Erradicate hunger
>3rd world countries use the food surplus to breed like rabbits
>World hunger is back and now we have 10 billion people instead of 7
amazing idea

Implying blacks lived there before.

It's not as good as 0% policy

...

T. aids skrillex

1. Better 0% than 3%

2. It's a shit because that only delay the mongrelization of Europe, but will happen eventually, becase, yes not all immigrants will be brown, but the most of them will.

The only thing we have to do is increase the natives birth rates, giving mothers more money for having children, campaigns pro-birth, etc.

then the best part
>mass death

Malthusian Catastrophe. Your creating even more suffering for the future.

The only thing we have to do is increase the natives birth rates

you gonna have millions of kids?
in case you haven't noticed birth rates in all developed countries are dropping and have been for years

I think it's because ppl don't wanna bring kids into this nightmare world

lol

people have got smart enough to say eh fuck having a litter and hoping one makes it big and instead investing their money and time into one or two kids.

How about not having any reitremnt fund if you don't have 2 kids?
Also you wouldn't have the right vote or be a politician if you didn't had two sons.

look at japan, even if ppl get married they might not have kids
there was a time cover floating around on here talking about not having kids

>thats the only reason for immigration

Topkek

why not just beat them until they do?

viable

it's too fucking hard/ expencive and there's little hope of a bright future for them

>That means each year you'd only accept the number of inmigrants that makes 3% of the newborns of your country.
If you can get the EU to agree with that I'm completely fine with it. Liberals can't complain because we are actively taking them in. If they want more then all they have to do is make more (white) baby's.
That would put a halt to the womyn career bitching and take away their argument about decline in birth rate.

3% of anual births in the Netherlands would be 4600-6300.

Glad someone agrees.

I didn't read the time story but I did read about the japanese when the stories started coming out about 5 years ago

> whats wrong with my idiotic scheme?
such a policy would be POINTLESSLY CONVOLUTED

a society has to be able to plan, an immigration policy that changes every year based on a random metric like "births" which can swing wildly from year to year is retarded.

no party "makes it that way" because it's STUPID.

immigration should be dependant on
1 : a sponsor
2 : proving you are an asset to the target country
3 : the utter assurance that if you fuck up, you will be deported.

arbitrary quotas are a political tool, nothing more.

What about immigrant numbers must equal last years emigrant numbers within 1% for each country. So if 1000 people went to country X last year then 1000 people from country X can come in this year.

> right to asylum
canadian logic.

so you gonna open canada's doors to america's negroes when welfare and gibsmedat dries up and the negro race starts looking for a new home?

8 million american street niggers shuffling across the border, seeking asylum from the evil racist patriarchy in the US...

canada would be so enriched by their presence, surely you can find room in your hearts to take in those poor desperate refugees who have nowhere else to go for a free ride.

no?
i didnt think so

>the faggot supports child pornography
Proofs?

>selling state property to the jews
Private ownership > state ownership.

Only strategic sectors of economy should be owned by the state.

I think the biggest threat to whites are other whites

>Why would people be agaits it?
It solves nothing as the main issue is a mass influx of african and muslim welfare tourists that you have no control over.
The only viable solution is securing EU borders.

So Germany will take 1.500.000+/- 1% anually?
Evn if that somehow includes family reunification that would be 15 mil in a decade
The Netherlands in 12 years.

You would have to build houses stores, schools, hospitals etc for 1.5 milion people every year
Thats Phoenix Arizona, you would have to build Phoenix Arizona every year

>refugees have a human right to asylum
Yeah, in this particular case, in Turkey.

isis/isil/daesh is a proxy war between iran and saudi arabia

no, not really.
a militant semi-marxist insurgency trying to establish a theocratic state in sandland is NOTHING NEW
it has happened many times in history.
you think ibn saud became the king of all arabia because he got the most votes in the prettiest camel pageant?
fuck no!
he murdered a shitload of sandniggers until the remaining dune coons acquiesced , in the grand tradition of mohammed (piss be upon him)

> isis/isil/daesh ios a proxy war between US and russia

NOT EVEN CLOSE

syria has been in the russian camp since the 60's when papa assad first created his mohammedan-marxist hereditary monarchy

isis/isil/daesh is threatening to kick over his turdcastle and subjugate the people the assad dynasty has grown accustomed to subjugating.
russia says Nyet to daesh's schemes, while the US says Nyet to both daesh AND assad.

the US is NOT funding daesh
daesh is NOT a cia/mossad stalking horse
daesh is 100% a raghead insurgency, nobody else cares enough about ragheads to start a war in syria far from the oil fields.

if the cia or mossad REALLY wanted syria's shit rather unproductive low grade oil fields, we would simply TAKE it.

kinda like you lefty twats claim we "stole" iraq's oil, even though the US didnt get a drop of it, and was NEVER compensated for the expense of liberating the camel jockeys from their tin pot dictator of the week.

frankly, sandland is entirely run by dune coon despots, and as long as they keep their shit in sandland, nobody cares what they do to each other.

they are a nuisance, and a menace mostly to themselves, so the rest of the world just watches them tear themselves apart

>daesh
>daesh
>daesh

We have had this discussion over and over again.
ITS ISIS

> I think the biggest threat to whites are other whites
i agree
whites who openly advocate for the destruction of white societies through the importation of foreigners are the biggest threat.

i am looking right at you canada.

Lindybeige made a good video chellenging politicians to state what NUMBER of immigrants per year is OK/tollerable.

Me for Poland (ca. 38 mln): 1000 per annum and 100 000 per 100 years.

> isis
nope.

i will call those camel jockeys what i want. their self-identification is less important to me than the SJW "mayonnaise is a gender" squad

bruce jenner is still a dude, no matter how many artificial hormones he doses himself with, nor whether he has his balls cut off.

daesh is daesh because they hate that name, so fuck em.

actually I was thinking of nuclear weapons
most of which are pointed at white countries from white countries

maybe whites are generally just genocide idiots

>because they hate that name
Or that is what your liberal media wants you to bellieve.

> nukes
really????

no white country has ever been nuked

US nukes are NOT pointed at any "white" countries

if you want to sweat some nukes, talk to russia.

yeah I'm just going to pretend you're sane

Immigration should be capped at half the birth rate of native couples. If White cucks want their precious shitskins then they'd have to stop race mixing and make white babies

they ARE "islamic" but they are not a "state"

they are bandits murderers and thieves, nothing more

the press and barry seotoro calls them isis/isil, and since those faggots are always looking to appease any moslem barbarians, i choose the opposite course.

i dont speak raghead, and dont read dune-runes, so i have to go by what their foes call them, which is Daesh.

they have expressed distaste fro that name, so that's the one i prefer.

or sometimes Goat Fuckers.

>Who is Robert Mugabe
Leaf this place, and never return.

running for your life? yeah sorry, see, we aren't screwing that much these days so you're just gonna have to die