Are you against economic migrants or all migrants period?

Are you against economic migrants or all migrants period?

Other urls found in this thread:

breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/08/illegal-alien-crime-accounts-for-over-30-of-murders-in-some-states/
cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households
usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/
youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM
rer.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/03/30/0034654315577680.abstract.
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

just the none european ones, thanks kikes

Call me a Jew shill, but some immigrants are needed to fill job positions we can't fill ourselves

why the sudden drop in the middle?

ww2

Emergency Immigration Act of 1921, ww1/2

A large percentage of our pop. was immigrants so we halted it for a little while.

then a jew thought it was a good idea to open back up to any and everyone

hecantkeepgettingawaywithit.gif

>largest mass migration in Human history into the US

>nobody talks about it
>we'll come through this just fine

(OP)
>are you against economic migrants
Yes
>are you against all migration period
In general yes unless for a good reason such as bringing competence and similar beneficial things to the nation they migrate to.

Mass migration is pointless, their home nations are now even more screwed up, and less around to fix them. And the nations they move to that are well functioning are now in high risk of being divided internally on ethnic and cultural boundaries and screwed up also.

I'm for VERY REDUCED and HIGHLY SELECTIVE migration that brings competence and such things to the nation they migrate to. And if they decide to become citizens, they should adopt the mainline culture and traditions of the place they move to as a non negotiable part, because basically too many cultural aswell as massive ethnic differences in a nation just messes things up and can easily divide a nation if not addressed.

This is basically also why i argue that "multiculturalism" and "diversity" isn't per default a good thing, nor necessarily an improvement at all. Infact it is far HARDER to agree on how to do things and to get things done and to decide what's best for the nation and its people.. when have 20 different views and oppinions about how to do most things internally in a nation.

Leftists will deny this ofcourse.

I just fucking hate niggers.

They look like shit.

They smell like shit.

They don't work for shit.

They're shit

I'm against how loosely conservatives tend to define "Economic migrant", as if plucking somebody out of overfilled refugee camps in a country bordering Syria means we're talking in "economic migrants". No, we're taking the strain of taking in refugees off of countries taking in a disperportionate amount of them.

There are however many refugees right now coming from countries not at war, like countries in North Africa, just trying to get a ticket into richer countries with more oppertunity. I don't blame them for their deception, anybody that didn't take advantage of a good oppertunity like that for their family is a bit of a bitch, but everybody that has studied it has found the MAJORITY of refugees are coming from countries that aren't at war.

Clearly countries, especially countries like Germany aren't doing a good enough job filtering refugees, and are actually hamstringing their ability to help real refugees while wasting a lot of money.

Uh, I mean, no fuck rapefugee mudslimes.

I'm fine with all kinds of immigration even open borders as long as it's places where both sides would be willing to go to the other and work and join the culture.

So really as long as you are an Anglo in the Anglosphere or a Slav in Eastern Europe you should be able to go anywhere in the region.

Neither.
I'm against illegal imigrants.
If they go through the process of becoming legal citizens and adapt to the culture of the nation they are moving to there shouldn't be a problem.

>largest mass migration in human history (of european ethnicities
>US was till 1950's 89.5% european ethnicities, and had a "european first" immigration principle to preserve their pan european based culture. It was only after they discarded this principle and allowed migration from all over the world including from 3rd world nation that this changed, along with all the illegal immigration this caused.
You fell for the leftist melting pot meme, that makes it appear as if it was migration from all over the world that created america and made it great. It wasn't. This is a leftist narrative to get people to accept mass immigration in a non culturally or behaviourally selective factor from all over.

>we'll come through this just fine
Your premise is incorrect, so you have zero guarantee of that unless you are far more selective of who you let into your country and how you let them conduct themselves. Failure to be selective and make any requirements to their behaviour and attitude, well then you will just have to look at how their home nations are, in order to know what to expect your nation to turn into.

I am against ALL forms of immigration.
Black, White, Yellow , Purple, whatever.
We don't need any more goddamn people in this country. At it's best it supports brain-drain from developing countries crippling their development, at worst it turns nice countries into a bleed-off valve for third world over-population problems.

On the other hand I'm ok with the idea of voluntary population EXCHANGE however. So for example if a white man wants to permanently move to Africa, an equivalent African could permanently move to America then. This solves both problems as you're exchanging people of equal merits, and it prevents population increase. Furthermore it by default cuts off the flow of shit from shit countries, as very few people in good countries have any interest in moving permanently to shit countries.

Oh, also here in Canada the most neutral people that have studied it, like SFU, have found that actual immigrants the way we currently filter them reduce the tax base of the country more than they expand it. However, allowing people to immigrate to Canada leads to a huge quality of life increase for those that immigrate.

Because Canadas low birthrate ensures a steady stream of first/second/third generation immigrants who have people in their families that immigrated, politics in Canada are forever pro-immigration. People stand to only benefit modestly economically from reduced immigration, but others stand to gain massive benefits. Probably the only way we can get Canada to stop taking in a shitton of immigrants is getting the country to fuck and reproduce enough that the economic benefit of immigrants reduces because they will no longer help with the problems of demographic decline, and turn from a slight waste of money into a huge one.

I feel being anti-immigration in Canada is pointless, we need to encourage Canadians to start families. That in the long term is the only way to reverse the tide of immigration, which is causing negative effects like the population skewing old.

>Your premise is incorrect, so you have zero guarantee of that
He was being facetious.

No buddy I meant currently we are in the largest migration in history. I haven't fallen for the melting pot meme at all.

40 million legal immigrants here right now, nearly all non white. Not including another 20-30 illegal ones. We;ve essentially been conquered.

I was just saying nobody talks about this. This will inevitably break up the USA. Either that or we become mongrelized like the whites in the middle east did.

Checked.
Really doesn't matter because you are a one post dipshit.
Sage.

yup, unhinged altruism is evil

>I feel being anti-immigration in Canada is pointless
>we need to encourage Canadians to start families. That in the long term is the only way to reverse the tide of immigration.

Separate those two and your point has merit.
Mass immigration especially from non well functioning nations, is of high cost to your nation because they don't bring competence.. If you take that away you can actually afford to subsidize financially your people for having many kids. WITH unchecked immigration it is not easy to afford, and it will also make it harder for an original canadian to marry another canadian..

Having the expense both culturally and financially of mass unchecked migration and attempting to improve native canadians birthrates, is like running a marathon whilst having a little midget kick you in the balls every half mile. Because now people have to work harder with the excess burden of massive amounts of people coming in.. so less time and less money for having kids, whilst the migrants just go on welfare and pump out 4-5 kids and skew your birthrates even further.

>open borders
>welfare
Pick one, if you want unchecked migration, migrants have to work or leave, no handouts.

If you want welfare, close your borders and be very selective with who gets in, cause you're going to have to pay for them via taxes..

If you want both (which still will risk making your majority ethnicity minorities gradually, though much less risk since they can't just go on welfare and have 5 kids without paying for them in full), you have to give welfare only to native canadians and non to migrants, for say 20 years till they have earned the right and adapted to your society enough to warrant them being part of your way of life and vetting it that way.

no one wants to go to 3rd world shitholes though so you are practically against all immigration

im against male migrants desu

2nd and 3rd generation Canadians are much cheaper to subsidize than new 1st immigration immigrants, trying to get recent immigrants to fuck is not a counter-productive goal. It's a much better alternative to increasing immigration rates objectively, and because of the political situation I described before, there is perpetual non-partisan support for high immigration levels in Canada.

There are usually some debates about fine tuning it, and recently about refugees, but one of the conservative governments main controversies was its temporary foreign workers program.

Like literally, if you took 1st generation immigrants out of the picture (which is logically impossible, but just as a thought experiment) the effect of 2nd and later generation immigrants would be a net positive economic benefit. It's really the first generation that costs us all the money.

I'm of course looking at this in a financial lens, but you know what, I think that's what speaks to people in Canada. Not dreams about preserving a pure white nation.

EVERY
FUCKING
TIME

>unhinged altruism is evil
And also incredibly expensive, tens of millions of new citizens coupled with the native citizens kids.. doesn't just finance themselves.. especially if they are economic migrants that don't bring any worthwhile skills and expect to be schooled, housed, and sit on welfare pumping out 5 kids so you have to work even harder since the taxes will have to increase to reflect that.

Leftists act as if lack of self reliance by hordes of economic migrants is somehow automatically financed.. nope, it just overburdens everyone else.

And eventhough it's a smaller issue than the cultural and behavioural aspects and changes in demographics.. It's still a massive one..

The more you analyze it thoroughly the more you realize what a disaster unchecked, and unvetted non selective mass migration and cultural "diversity" is.

Only when you don't analyze the ramifications of it at all and just go by "muh feels" and "muh idealistic approach" do you fail to recognize this..

So full circle yes.. unhinged altruism is evil, because it is incredibly destructive. You reward people for good behaviour, you shouldn't reward people for terrificly bad or terrible behaviour.

I'm fine with a small, reasonable amount of migrants who maintain their own culture, in their own neighborhoods. If the want to assimilate more, fine, but they shouldn't complain that a new country doesn't treat them like a native. That would be the case in Somalia, Egypt, Japan, anywhere... it's how it works. If you're fine being the alien somewhere, cool.

Immigrants who overwhelm a place to the point of changing the entire cultural makeup, alienating the locals, taking jobs from the working class, and raising crime stats, are not cool, and it's perfectly fair to want to put a cap on that.

>I'm of course looking at this in a financial lens, but you know what, I think that's what speaks to people in Canada. Not dreams about preserving a pure white nation.

Oh canada, you're not only not looking at it thoroughly enough from a financial lense, but you're also expecting all no matter which nation they come from to be equally competent and behave exactly similarly as everyone else with regards to work ethics, competence and similar.

You ignore for instance the US which is the only successfull example of mass immigration.. why.. because it used pretty much ONLY european immigration.. which let it increase its population whilst preserving its pan european culture.

Where do you suggest your competent migrants should come from in your canadian mass immigration adventure? africa? middle east? South america? Everywhere but europe right? :D hehehe

If you're not careful with your little adventure, canada is not going to be a successful nation anymore..
At which point it doesn't matter much that it's atleast is not a "racist" "majority european based" nation like the US.. which some leftists notions are.. those ideals will be worthless.

Because a shithole is a shithole.

I pick none, both are cancerous welfare should be done by private charity organizations, way more efficient and encourages people to get back to work

TOTTA VITUSSA

>Call me a Jew shill, but some immigrants are needed to fill job positions we can't fill ourselves
Not in the USA, or any other nation with more than 20 million population.

The problem isn't lacking people to fill a spot it's employers not wanting to pay an attractive wage, or setting the requirements vastly higher than required or failing to have training programs to make new trained workers.

OLD MEME

If that was true, why not just import half of Africa into your country, and put it on the tab. Next generation you should be gaining insane ROI for your nation.

They really seem to have a knack for historically having made bad policy decisions for majority white nations. Deliberately or not.

Can't even imagine how successfull US would've have been if the "european first" principle had not been altered. It can still be great again MAGA.. but i doubt it even had to had this not occurred.

Think about the bowl of stupidity that was.

>US successfull via mass european only migration to preserve its pan american culture for its entire existence.
>89.5% european as a result in the 1950's
>Let's play with this FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE for the nations existence, for americas greatness and exceptionalism and see what happens.. might be fun.
Who does that? smdh..

They're basically importing people with poor nature, thinking that with enough nurture they will succeed. Sure they will get a minority of the people in the right side of the bell curve who will be a net positive for the economy, but why bring the whole left side with it? That is the whole point of selective immigration, to bring only the right side of the bell curve.

There is also the issue of political ideological inheritance. For example Indian Americans and East Asian Americans in this country vote democrat because they are naturally collectivists and apolitical to governmental intrusions. Even when these people are arguable more intelligent or more productive than the native population, they can vote away the productivity and sanity of a nation with a marginal tip of the voter base.

>If that was true, why not just import half of Africa into your country, and put it on the tab. Next generation you should be gaining insane ROI for your nation.
Exactly, and he even says he has considered it from a financial lense..
Not quite thoroughly enough i'd say!

Someone needs to take an economics class. There is no such thing as jobs that need to be filled only jobs that don't compensate enough.

Man I never knew I believed all that stuff.

It's impractical in todays politics to argue we should only take immigrants from Europe, somebody will just counter that immigrants that pass scerening that come from any country should be allowed. That has it's own flaws, like wasting a ton of money on Mexican immigration fraud, or dealing with Chinese students who are world champion cheaters. That being said it's just the way things are gonna be, European only immigration is a fantasy that is out of touch with the politics here, anti-immigration sentiment is already not politically correct here and europeans are a declining part of the population. How is there ever going to be political support for that?

The majority of Canadians are pro-multiculturalism. Canadians that are pro-immigration have more economic reason to support pro-immigration policies, than Canadians that are anti-immigration, because the demographic decline makes the economic impact of immigration less than it would normally be. I'm just being realistic about the politics of my country, I can jerk Sup Forums off and talk some bullshit about how Canada should have all european immigration, or should eliminate immigration, but it's sort of pointless.

The right can win small battles on immigration, like the housing market is going WAY up in price right now due to foreign capital buying up all the homes everywhere jobs are being created, that's creating anti-immigration sentiment, but we can't win the war. There is support in Canada to raise the price of investor visas, and close some immigration loopholes where you can immigrate to Quebec which has the easiest immigration and move to another province, but we can only win battles. If you want to support a pure white country in Canada, basically the only thing long term you can do is hammer the point that immigrants aren't a net economic benefit, point out they're hurting the poor, and increase the birth rate to erode pro-immigration support.

I'm for all migrants.

Human life is more important than your fake ass borders or national pride.

Nations have always been bordered around ethnic populations. Ethnic nationalism is the natural emergence of political states. This has to do with a unity of values, behaviors, and morals. That is the hard reality, and as nations import immigrants, they will become more divisive. In our nation, white flight is a common theme because the non productive population groups will always chase the productive ones for more resources. That is why it is imperative for the native population to maintain their territorial integrity and a semblance of unity when it comes to basic values.

It's nice paying $14 Billion a year to illegal immigration but caring more about if someone wants a dick or not. These are the things that really matter.

Unless we have 0% unemployment, ALL

>integrity and stability of the nation is not important only muh feels. So bring masses amount of economic migrants in to go on welfare for my feels, so this nation can be ruined too like their home nations are.. and don't make any requirements of competence or anything or require that they assimilate so that the society doesn't become divided and completely different in its attitude and behaviour, cause muh feels are so important.
Just..

>human life
>muh feels
If you cared about human life you would have successfull nations maintain their integrity and stability so that they could continue to attempt to uplift badly functioning nations..

Stop being so illogical and non pragmatic.. otherwise you won't realize the disastrous consequences of what you're promoting. I guess that's why leftists tend blame someone else for what their disastrous suggestions result in.

There is nothing important about any human life, human life varies in value depending on the human's intelligence, morals, etc. This is why we convict people to prison or put people on death row.

GUYS AN ARBITRARY AMOUNT OF TIME (which is illusory) HAS ELAPSED WE NEED TO COMPLETELY GIVE UP OUR PRINCIPLES

Well, I don't know what your country is like, probably shitty and gay, but in my country, statistically, the average immigrant commits fewer crimes, uses less welfare and pays more taxes than the average native son... so your argument doesn't apply

>If that was true, why not just import half of Africa into your country, and put it on the tab. Next generation you should be gaining insane ROI for your nation.

I said the current levels of immigration lose Canada money, the cost of the first generation do not outweigh the cost of the second and third. I was pointing out the second and third have economic benefits because a retarded user thinks it's a bad thing for immigrants to reproduce when looking at it economically, it actually reduces how many costly first-generation immigrants we have to take in while preventing demographic decline. The point of my post is that having immigrants of a giving country reproducing is better than continually importing half of Africa, you're not arguing against my point burger, you're arguing for it.

When you import first generation immigrants to increase your population, you skew the population older, you have to assimilate them, you have to have an army of healthcare workers and shit to deal with the fact the population is going to skew old. The data shows they strain social services about as much as other Canadians but generate far less tax revenue because nobody wants to hire anybody that can only speak broken english. In Canada immigration is justified mostly on grounds of demographic decline, so I would prefer to reduce that demographic decline in a more favorable way than taking in more immigrants. Pragmatically encouraging everybody to reproduce in a shotgun approach is the most cost effective way to deal with Canadas demographic problems caused by heavy immigration.

Why do you want to displace natives even more and take even more of their land?

Humanity is a social construct. Europeans are a highly distinct and exceptional subspecies of man, non-whites are subhuman trash who will drag us down into the stone age if we fail to violently purge them.

Immigration should improve the country.

Bring in better people than the population, not worse.

How hard is this?

>Unless we have 0% unemployment, ALL

>Being this silly
>not understanding sustainability
>not understanding who creates jobs and how they are created, and simply wants to bring in an indiscriminate workforce only qualified for the least complex manual labour, which is why many of them go on welfare at massive cost.
>not understanding tradition from young to old in the job market
>not understanding that people randomly brought in can't necessarily fill the positions that are currently unemployed since they might require extensive training or competences outside their reach
>Not understanding that mass unchecked immigration is costly for the nation and part of what has increased the US deficit, and increases taxes which causes some businesses to shut down
>not understanding how mass low competence immigration drives down wages.
>not realizing the multitude of reasons people are unemployed right now in the US
>Not understanding massive amounts of other factors.

So.. right now the US has massive unemployment.. bring in 50 million from africa, this will surely fix the job situation.. Genius.

Son, do you really want to be displaced inside your own country by people that are better than you to boot?

Only unskilled ones that don't know the language.

Immigrants are actually good for society if they are severely limited and only highest quality.

Jews poisoned white culture and the birth rates died. Their solution is literally to import a million Syrians and North African muslims with an incredibly high rate of support for ISIS.

We are living in a transitional time. The jews fleeing the EU and USA know whats going to happen soon. I personally don't want it to happen, but I guess when you write a bunch of news articles in top publications celebrating the death of white america, celebrating poverty and suffering of a people, suddenly everyone wakes up.

>Well, I don't know what your country is like, probably shitty and gay
Forbes 2015 rated #1 best for business in the entire world.
> in my country, statistically, the average immigrant commits fewer crimes, uses less welfare and pays more taxes than the average native son... so your argument doesn't apply

>my country is great if you say that mass migration is NOT good i don't want to hear it
>puts fingers in the ears.

breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/08/illegal-alien-crime-accounts-for-over-30-of-murders-in-some-states/

Against all non-white immigrants, they are toxic for the first world countries they move into.

This is of course all in the context of Canadian politics, and more of a long-term view. The pendulum is swinging anti-immigration these days, but I just don't see the right outarguing the left in Canada and Canada shutting its borders to immigration forever. There is more money and political support in pro-immigration politics in Canada, than there is in anti-immigration politics.

What I'm getting at is you can argue anti-immigration all you want but you're only going to get so far unless you destroy the grassroot supports of pro-immigration people in Canada, and grow the grassroots of anti-immigration people in Canada. There isn't an anti-immigration party in Canada, you basically vote between the lot of immigration party and the shitton of immigration party.

>cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households
>usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/
>About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households
>Immigrants who have been in the U.S. more than 20 years use welfare less often, but their rates remain higher than native-born households.

Yup

I agree. Also, you left out the part how most immigrants will never develop a sense of allegiance to their host country. The reality of life is geopolitical decisions require destabilizing certain countries to foster more prosperity for one's own nation, and the USA has been dumb in how it has accepted immigrants from even the nations they fuck up (e.g., Vietnam, Iran/Persia, etc. -- while these people may be friendly, they wouldn't risk their lives for this country that fucked them over).

The brain drain is also very bad for the emigrant's nation, and with them leaving, it can leave bad regimes for a long time.

I have never felt American, even though I was born here. Most of these issues are due to neoliberalism, which doesn't fall into either the "left or right" fyi. I agree with your analysis of the issues it causes, but I think you don't understand the cause at all -- which I hate to say, makes you kind of stupid.

But I'm not going to be displaced by the government allowing in waves of smart people then closing borders again to allow everything to equilibrate then do it again.

That's how we got North America pre-sixties.

The only problem was bringing over the boatloads of nigs.

pure coincidence

I'm not against immigrants, just mass immigration. If someone is healthily proud of their race, accepting and tolerant of the culture they're about to enter, and possesses skills that make them an asset to wherever they're going, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to the country.

Unless there's a major jobs shortage, I don't see migrants taking jobs as a huge problem. Remember, guys, the Apollo program wouldn't have existed without immigrants and prisoners from Germany. Sometimes you DO need to look for talent abroad.

Molymeme made a statistics video about this aswell with the sources in his blog.
youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM

Yea basically this. I had a long argument with someone about this for Canada and I basically took the stance that: the job the migrant is doing does not have to be spectacular, welding, carpentry, neurosurgeon, whatever.. As long as they have a job that they are highly skilled at and we have openings in that area that we REALLY can't fill with Canadians. This is not what happens. What happens is Talmuj shows up, works as a bus boy for half what Kyle would have, gets paid in cash by the owner of the restaurant who is also from Dheli, Talmuj then brings his seventeen """cousins""" or whatever in. Now we have eighteen Randeeps working menial jobs that our teenagers needed to pad their resume or make a few bucks while back from college. Now Kyle can't find work. Meanwhile Randeep et al. are living twenty-eight people to a 500 square foot apartment in Toronto and shitting in their and do fuck knows what else..basically one step above homeless. Kyle's at home with his parents at 30, no kid, no wife, no car, no cultural identity or national pride, barely scraping by.

Welcome to Canada, because it's current year.

>Center for Immigration Studies

so your evidence is a conservative think tank that has as it's stated goal, pushing anti-immigration legislation and reducing the number of immigrants to the US.

Try a source without such an obvious bias next time.

>emigrant
typo -- immigrant*

>I was pointing out the second and third have economic benefits
citation?

>having immigrants of a giving country reproducing is better than continually importing half of Africa
But is it a net benefit for the country economically? Now what about politically? They still use welfare and public infrastructure. They still have lower IQs. They still will vote for bigger government and bigger dependence. Does the native citizen become wealthier, more trustful of his neighbors, more satisfied with his political environment, more harmonious with his nation's values?

I'm becoming very cynical about Canada. Now, I mostly look at this in terms of how I can profit from it while living in a diversity free neighbourhood and sending my kids to a diversity free school.

The only people who seem to benefit from mass migration in absence of any signficant Canadian industry are people who own rental units or generally the real estate market.

And the leftists are in complete denial cause according to them "that wasn't supposed to happen".
Ofcourse that was going to happen with those kinds of policies and notions..
That they expected anything different is the tragedy itself because they simply lack the understanding of the ramifications of what they suggest..
That's why they can't reason in advance that this will have negative consequences. They don't think things through cause they have the mental barriers of "muh racism" and "muh culture" to even the slightest pragmatic analysis of these issues.

Chinese and Indians are far worse than nigs. Unlike nigs, any attempt to deport gooks will likely result in war. If the current demographic patterns continue, Australia and Canada will be annexed by China by the end of the century. Individually, gooks are intelligent enough to function in a white country, but once they achieve political power, their weak innate tendency towards altruism will result in the creation of a hellish ant-colony.

That's why you only let in smart Euros instead of slavs and poles.

Asia has demonstrated again and again that they're shitty at building societies.

Even their most successful experiment, Japan, is like some fucking freakshow of social and psychological dysfunction and misery underneath all the brilliant technology. Keep them at arm's length making our shoes and phones.

I'm against islam.

I'm against multiculturalism as a concept and diversity as a value.

>financial lens

I think even if they bring useful skills, they shouldn't be accepted. They should stay in their own countries and improve it.

I agreed with your initial analysis, but you don't understand the cause. The cause is neoliberalism: "the increasing privatization of the state, movement towards deregulation of markets, limited role of government with central banks playing the largest economic role in a state not government stimulus, and acceptance of the power of corporations over the state and a stress of private ownership of as much of a economy has possible."

Neo-liberalism places a focus on economic growth over other concerns. It argues that this is beneficial to society at large despite the fact that it tends to ignore environmental constrains and other social issues. It encourages individuals and the state to comply to market dynamics in order to benefit the corporate elite.

Immigrants are just accepted because of neoliberalism, to benefit the economy and not communal stability.

"The true threat to our communal ways of life are not foreigners but the dynamic of global capitalism... " - Slavoj Zizek

>I feel being anti-immigration in Canada is pointless, we need to encourage Canadians to start families.

It's not but only if, as a preliminary step, you destroy social capital by purposefully raising racial tensions like a motherfucker. This ought to be easy to do.

>Japan, is like some fucking freakshow of social and psychological dysfunction and misery underneath all the brilliant technology.

Lol, what brilliant technology? Japan never invented anything, they just take white inventions and repackage them into shitty consumer goods. If we had fair trade deals with didn't allow Japanese to dump on our market while keeping theirs closed, Japanese would be starving in the streets.

>Lol, what brilliant technology?

Nintendo Gameboy and weab games nigga.

Lean/SixSigma manufacturing is the greatest thing that Japan has ever created. :) :) :)

NAG

>CPU
>Plastic
>Electronic display

All white inventions

But Donkey Kong isn't [spoiler]even though all the best Donkey Kong games were the Country series made by Brits and Texans.[/spoiler]

Give up. Even the two plumbers they employed were Italians.

The economic benefit is preventing the pic related warping of Canadas demographics, which is making our population skew older and straining social services perpetually. It's that second generation immigrants are far more likely to assimilate than first generation.

>They still have lower IQs
In the US immigrants are outperforming their native peers largely due to Asian immigrants, and Canada has an even higher level of Asian immigration than the US. rer.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/03/30/0034654315577680.abstract. This is a rather shitty argument against immigration when you look at the reality of what's happening, a bunch of Asians are getting rich in a crowded ass countries and are moving out, and not conservative fantasies about half of Africa immigrating. Syrian refugees obviously are lowering the IQ on average given they're refugees from a war torn country but that's a seperate issue.

>economics
Hurts our country as a net benefit, but again I explained how immigrants themselves have a lot to gain and have allies within Canada, which distorts the politics into pro-immigration politics.

>Politically, nations values
Immigration is causing increasing social problems. You'd be surprised how right Asian immigrants can lean but this is generally correct, last elections immigrants voted center-left, liberals.

>Welfare and public infrastructure.
Estimates of how much social services immigrants use are inaccurate in Canada. It's hard to make any conclusions about how much they cost the government, since they require less spending in schooling and they are selected for their ability to hold down a job. One interesting metric is they use less subsidized housing than the natives do here in Canada. There is however, very strong evidence they do not contribute as much to taxes, and thus are a net economic detriment to Canada if you assume they're not straining social services more.

>It's that second generation immigrants are far more likely to assimilate than first generation.

We can still select the migrants though. No muzzies. Possibly no Africans. It leaves the Latinos and the Asians.

All immigrants take an IQ test, those with IQs above the nation's median come in. Their children will have high IQs as well. That solves most immigration problems. There is still political inheritance/left-leaning of immigrants.

>Spooky Eugenics
>At an arbitrary juncture in a arbitrary time Matt Damon would not be proud of you.

Actually even I'm oversimplifying the economics here a bit, because immigration is needed here so much to fill jobs. We had a bunch of berry fields just have their crops rot out here in BC just because there weren't people to fill the jobs not too far back, despite perpetual whinging that immigrants were taking our jerbs, they could not get the lazy fucks here to actually do the work. So in that specific case bringing in some immigrants to work the field did have a net economic benefit.

Reducing immigration because they, on paper, drain from the tax base can have unintended consequences like the country not having a large enough labor force and shooting its economy in the face. Reduced immigration might have an economic benefit in the short term, and certainly we could reduce immigration to maintenance levels, but if we actually shrunk Canadas population significantly we would start facing economic issues with under-utilized infrastructure. I'm not even going to pretend to really understand the complexities of Canadian immigration, I barely have an understanding of BCs situation in regards to immigration. Immigration is out of control and is straight up fucking up the economy due to cost of living distortions/allowing too much foreign investment, however there is an actual need for workers for low wage positions. I couldn't tell you how it affects the other provinces economically.

The end result is a foreign economi/ruling/academic elite with little love for the former "natives" and with allegiances elsewhere.

>berry fields is my best example
Guess what, strawberries are the only example. Every time I watch a documentary purporting to show the benefits of immigration it's a fucking strawberry field. Be it Britain or Greece. Every time, it's strawberries. Cotton was an argument for negroes...until the invention of the mechanical cotton picker. If we stop migratoin, there will be more economic pressure to automate your stupid berry picking.

I think we need to think about if mass immigration or constant immigration at all should be a thing. Because i don't think there's really a legitimate reason for it.

People that are in a state of war or similar should be assisted on location.. or in a safe zone for that to avoid bringing the conflict here to interfere with day to day operations internally in well functioning nations.

If your problem is not having enough kids currently, then subsidize your people having more kids and making families, problem solved very quickly. So using that for mass immigration shouldn't be a legitimate argument either.

We should stop acting as if other nations aren't supposed to do shit, They need their own people, and they need to put in the work to improve their nations so we raise the bar instead of lowering it. And it's much easier to agree and respect eachother culturally and cooperate on a nation to nation basis than it is to agree internally when people come from all over and are not founding a nation together like in the US.

Technologically and such that can be handled via trade or various agreements so they have what they require if they're missing something like this.

Why should there be migration at all except in rare cases of competence. It shouldn't even be a general thing. it's not like we would stop visiting eachother with tourism and for trade and various cooperative meassures.

There are no landmasses left to fill, which was the case with the US where they did mass european migration that then built the US.
So the mass immigration that comes willingly you already know that generally they are not a boon to your nation, otherwise they wouldn't make that decision to move from their not so well functioning nation to yours.

I definately think the whole idea of migration is going to a hot topic for several years to come. And hopefully be resolved with us abandoning this nonsense about mass immigration or constant migration being a general thing.

Also if you are interested in preserving ethnicities and all the respective cultures around the world.. Then nothing takes care of that better than stopping mass immigration.

Ironically what the leftists push as "celebrating diversity" is in actuality eroding it quite substantially tragically at the expense of the most well functioning nations in the world. Where only the most irellevant cultures and societies with regards to contributing to civilization are preserved.. And the most contributing nations are eroded.

I Live in a town surrounded by berry fields. A shitton of farmers got mad as fuck about all their crops dying because they couldn't get anybody to work the fields. It's an issue that affects my community.

In reality, no, fucking over the farmers by having a bunch of crops die won't create a wonderful future of automated fields. It will lead to dead crops, farmers going on welfare and getting bailouts, and the country wasting a bunch of money on stupid bullshit. If we just kick the farmers loose, and say "buy a bunch of automated berry picking equipment that's still in the early stages of development or die", that just puts a bunch of people on welfare. Pretty much every way this situation could resolve itself is unfavorable, we'd probably kick our farmers in the balls so hard they would sell out to larger companies which in turn would sell out to foreign companies, while the BC liberals used the situation as an excuse to shrink the agricultural land reserve, reducing food security and giving foreigners a ton of trade advantages over us. If the government somehow subsidized this equipment it would be a giant waste of cash, and also we can't afford to do that.

Im against non-white migrants.

>need for manual labor means we HAVE to HAVE to bring in millions of people and make them permanent citizens.
Look the amount of people being brought in via mass immigration are far more than those required for these types of things. So that's not really the issue here when people talk about mass migration, simply filling manual jobs. Also the migrants take a lot of jobs that students could take while they study. It sounds radical but you don't really HAVE to automate.. why not keep the manual jobs and turn having those into something useful for society instead.

Also if you subsidize having more kids for your citizens, you could make many manual labor jobs student jobs that then also would be perhaps better paid. Might suck to do whilst you study but you get paid and there's always a student job for you, and making them student jobs ensure they learn quality of hard work and that they have a part time job studying instead of it being hard for them to find one. And have education work around that.

Which would then ALL go back into your economy. Instead of in the case of US for instance, mexicans sending all the money back to their family in mexico for instance.

Also bringing in guest workers for a period whilst this is resolved, is not the same as them necessarily being permanent citizens. Ultimately the issue of needing manual labor should be an internal issue, that should be resolved internally.

If all nations ideally were successfull, as i would think everyone would be interested in. they each had to deal with automation in their own way. The solution shouldn't be "get a bunch of guest workers from a non well functioning nation". I think we need to look past that premise.

Like shooting yourself in the foot to encourage investment in some futuristic technology doesn't work. It doesn't work when leftists resist oil pipelines that transport oil more safely and allow us to access more markets so we can sell oil at a higher price, it just means we have less money to invest in things like green energy. It doesn't work when you shoot farmers in the foot by getting rid of their labor force to "encourage innovation". You see people on the left and right promote ideas like this as "long-sighted", economies snowball, fucking up your economy because you want to increase automation or investment in green energy is a horrible idea, it just results in foreign countries with all the capital buying out all the shit you invested in.