America was literally founded by refugees fleeing from religious persecution

America was literally founded by refugees fleeing from religious persecution.

Why are Americans against refugees now?

because their retards

>their retards

>virginians were refugees
Lmao

Why would we take in more refugees? Germany seems fine with taking them all

not a argument

Look what happened when the Indians took them in

Yeah, you don't want that to happen again

Why are Americans against people bringing religious persecution? dunno bro.

Because when they let us in we slaughtered them and took over the whole continent. No point wasting time on past guilt but it doesn't hurt to learn from historical mistakes.

>muh pilgrims
America was founded by stronk independent freemason landowners who didn't need no king george. Pilgrims are a fun cultural myth we tell.

>implying a simple bunch of religious refugees could possibly have maintained the necessary logistics and economic investment to create the 13 colonies

lad

Let me tell you what happened to the millions of natives

Never said it was, just saying that Germans are the real retards.

To put it simply, because "they're" different from "us"

/thread

these ones explode

the original britons lived in huts made of wattle and daub and slept in a single room with all of their livestock

why are modern britons now in favour of houses made of bricks? u really activated my almonds chief thats for sure

I hate it when people do this, but ...
/thread

rare

bait

>a argument

Natives didn't have any immigration laws.

Thus we came here legally.

Is that so much to ask from everyone else?

Because the ones we are getting immediately go on welfare and don't share the same values..in fact, they despise our way of life.

It stems from fear. There is a lot of unrest in the Middle East, and people still remember 9/11 and how we were attacked internally without warning. There are good arguments on both sides, from wanting to protect people, to maintaining security when one of the defining events of the 21st century stemmed from the kind of chaos that these people are running from and might allow. Same with Islam in general, stemming from fear of a culture that we don't understand and has been very violent in recent history. You could argue the why all day long, but the center of Islam is very divided, and that could hurt Americans.

It is just a matter of is the risk of allowing that sort of brush with danger again worth the lives that could be saved.

YEAH! JUST LET THE FUCKERS COME ON IN! AND WE'LL EVEN PAY FOR THEM WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS

It might be surprising you, but reufgees in Germany don't want more refugees either. In fact legal immigrants are fucking hitlers compared to native population when it comes to refugees. Go find a turkish taxi driver and ask him what he thinks about the 3 million.

wew

I would be okay with refugees if the refugees were Germanic people like the ones on the mayflower

however, there's no reason to let brown people of any kind come to america. they can't assimilate and their IQ is substantially lower. it's for the best if they stay out.

but they're not fleeing from religious persecution, in fact, their kind are the "religious persecutors" in the world now 100% of the time that it occurs. If you just gotta have your "refugees", faggot, send these pedophile worshipers back and bring the Christians and Buddhists and Hindus who's cultures are being exterminated by muslims over instead

Most people who came to America did it for money.

"refugees" yeah no, they were colonists/settlers. unlike syrian refugees who arrive in 1st world western cities and expect (and receive) all the amenities associated with 1st-world standards of living. the pilgrims were founding a new society in a new land across the fucking ocean and many of them starved to death or died of disease or were killed. not analogous circumstances.

im not against refugees, im against taking in millions of refugees who have no gratitude and just want to kill me. OP is a fucking faggot

Not sure. Let's ask the Indians.

because we are the natives and we know how that story ends

this is only true later (19th-20th century). earlier immigrants came for land, not money. land was more enticing than money, and there was a shitton of land in the new world.

Yeah, but it'd be just fine if it was millions of upstanding arabs and africans right?

fuck off

FUCK OFF WE'RE FULL

Land is money you dip

arab christians are welcome though

The Pilgrims were fucktards

They were kicked out by the Dutch for behaving like Muslims.

Then go plant some corn in your bank account.

no it's not you dip. land is a finite resource and many english settlers came here because there wasn't any land to buy in england and they didn't want to pay exorbitant rent prices to dickhead landlords their entire lives

>fleeing from religious persecution
I think Trump was open to allowing Christian refugees for exactly that reason
Muslim refugees make this claim when they're coming from majority Muslim areas

The same reason niggers and pakis voted brexit.

They are patesitess wanting to leech of the host alone.

because we are not the same people that where on those ships and this in not the 1400s

>land isn't money

Jew spotted

The pilgrims weren't going to the new world for free gibs Achmed. They were going there to create their own society.

Not that the native population was cucked by these "peaceful refugees"

land literally is not money. it's a valuable asset sure, but it's a lot different than what's in my wallet or bank account or investments

>arab

nope, go eat a dick faggot.

Land is the very foundation of wealth, I don't mean that it is literally currency. Be it the resources on the land, or what you use the land for, land trumps everything else.

White Americans massacred the native population and took over.

And you ask why we don't want immigrants or refugees

>America was literally founded by refugees fleeing from religious persecution.
Yeah, and look what happened to those refugees when they got here. They killed off much of the people already here, forced many to convert to their religion, and utterly demolished their cultures and nations. The invaders outbred the natives, and there are very few natives today, almost none of them living their heritage or the traditional ways of their people.

We now live in a peaceful society that has a heritage of progress, technology, knowledge, and greatness. We are strong enough that the new invaders and foreigners cannot displace us, change our culture, or even bomb our lands without our consent. Why would we consent to it? Why would we want to watch history repeat itself in this context?

I guarantee you, if the Native American nations had been knowledgeable enough about 15th century globalism, and were strong enough to defeat the Europeans, there would be no European descendants in the Americas today.

>an bait

They're not against refugees qua refugees, dummy. This is why they don't want refugees from Syria.

you're confusing the concepts of physical money and wealth.

all wealth is generated by land.

Worked well for the American natives!

literally this

Yeah and these ((((((refugees))))) slaughtered the local population, I dont want my people to get the same fate. We have to learn from History

The Virginia Company had stock holders and investors.

aka... money

>Land is the very foundation of wealth

sure, but in the 16th/17th centuries in north america land wasn't just a source of wealth, it was a source of independence and self-sufficiency and personal autonomy which is why so many settlers were so allured by the offer of free or cheap land

...

having money is what gives you independence, self-sufficiency, and personal autonomy. you've just refuted your own argument.

>The Virginia Company

a lot of colonization/settlement happened independent of the Virginia Company. not every settler who arrived in america was on the virginia company payroll lol

>it was a source of independence and self-sufficiency and personal autonomy

Think about that for a second.

The problem is when they do it ILLEGALLY.

nah, many of them were dirt poor in terms of cash/liquid assets but they had their own chunk of land, often arable land which could be passed to their progeny

which further reinforces the point that land = money.

why don't you just explain it?

>not considering the change in time affecting the context of the situation
Why the fuck is everyone so much more autistic than we are suddenly even to debilitating degrees? Is it the damn chemtrails?
Fucking hell.

no, it doesn't. these people had land but no money. their land wasn't money (during their lifetimes, obviously much more valuable now). i don't see your point

the original point is that most people came to America for money.

your argument is that they came for independence.

money is what gives people independence. therefore, they came for money regardless of how you look it it.

America wasn't founded by the pilgrims ffs. America was founded 150 years later.

NO IT WASN'T
OF THE ORIGINAL 13 COLONIES ONLY MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND MAYBE RHODE ISLAND WERE FOUNDED WITH ANY SORT OF BASIS IN RELIGIOUS ASYLUM
THE COLONIES WERE ALL FOUNDED TO MAKE MONEY
EVEN THOSE PREVIOUSLY LISTED
EVEN GEORGIA WHICH ALSO SERVED AS A BUFFER TO SPANISH FLORIDA

>dirt poor in terms of cash/liquid assets but they had their own chunk of land, often arable land which could be passed to their progeny
>cash/liquid assets

Where do you think those assets are acquired? They don't just magic themselves into existence.

By having a stake of land what can be passed down through their children as you've said, you have the foundation upon which wealth is built. Think of the nobility of old, they weren't measured by how much precious metals and gems they held in their treasury, they were measured by what land they had. That land of course, is what put those baubles in the treasury.

...

>your argument is that they came for independence.

no, they came for land (unobtainable in england) and/or dissatisfaction with the british government.

>money is what gives people independence.

most 17th-18th century settlers didn't get rich, they didn't gain a lot of money, but they were largely independent because they had their own land (which they wouldn't have had in england) and were pretty far away from any center of government

fuck off with your pasta ahmed. by the way, if you fertilize any women in europe, they get abortions, same thing here, except you have to doge some bullets to even get in there.

yeah, we fucked this soil, its our bitch now.

>but they were largely independent because they had their own land

Because, as has already been explained to you, land is the base of all wealth.

A child is subordinate to his parents because he cannot create money.

In the same way, a serf or peasant is subordinate to his landlord because he cannot create money.

Someone who owns land, however, is not subordinate to anybody unless it benefits him.

i bet you are one ugly mustafà

>you have the foundation upon which wealth is built.

yeah that's nice but i don't think most of the people coming over on boats in the 17th century were thinking "man i can't wait for the value of the land i'm gonna claim to appreciate over the next 200 years", they had more short-term goals.

Well, Mustafa, it's because they don't want to be persecuted.

>A child is subordinate to his parents because he cannot create money.


sure he can, child labor has been a thing throughout history

>Someone who owns land, however, is not subordinate to anybody unless it benefits him.

exactly my point. even if you have all the money in the world, it doesn't mean much if all the land is occupied and you still have to pay some asshole landlord rent. land is a finite resource, and for the lower and middle classes of 16th-17th century England there was scant opportunity to obtain land without going overseas

>ananas

because the pilgrams werent slaughtering and raping the inhabitants of the countries they were fleeing to....oh wait. DAYUM SUN, dat shit just hit me like a brick.

>sure he can, child labor has been a thing throughout history

child laborers aren't creating wealth. only landowners can create wealth.

>it doesn't mean much if all the land is occupied and you still have to pay some asshole landlord rent

so you've literally just agreed with me. you're arguing against yourself.

FUCK OFF WE'RE FULL

>child laborers aren't creating wealth. only landowners can create wealth.

sure, but most laborers aren't (or weren't if we're discussing the early colonial era) "creating their own wealth", yet they maintain independent households

>so you've literally just agreed with me. you're arguing against yourself.

explain that? i don't see how im arguing with myself. my point the entire time has been that most early settlers came for land, not "money" or "wealth" (excluding of course coastal colonies that were associated with the Virginia Company etc)

>Migrants colonizing newly discovered land without formal government or modern civilization
>Migrants joining an established country with a high standard of living and welfare program
The pilgrims didn't just set up shop in France. It's the same reason why Mormonism took off in Utah, no one was living there and so no one cared if they did their own thing.

Because we're now full.
Fuck off.

>"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

John Jay, Federalist Paper #2

It's culture. You cannot coexist peacefully with a culture whose values are the antithesis of yours. America was successful because it had immigrants from different national, but similar cultural backgrounds.

And how did that work out for the people already living here?

these religious refugees were also fundamentalists feeling from a degenerate europe which didn't fit the bill for them. go figure

they were white

We didn't kill off the natives and set up shop just to have some other faggots come in and ruin everything.

Take in a few hundred thousand more, Germany. That will surely wash your collective guilt about WWII away.