Instead of being anti-immigrant understand why they come.

Colonization never ended for the US and it's EU partners. They just do it more sophisticated since WW2 and Geneva conventions which prevent naked aggression and theft - instead overthrow governments covertly which have to will of the people in mind and install western hirelings to sell resources cheap to Western Corps. This leaves poverty and destitution along with radical terror groups in countries affected.

Here is a journal article which details one way it's done in case of Libya in 2011. It's long so I'll just post abstract here and you can follow link if you want the whole story.

"

In the wake of the “Arab Spring” revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt in late 2010 and early 2011, the conventional narrative, at least in the Western media, soon became one of an unstoppable tidal wave of emancipation. This was expected to leave no stone unturned, at least in the decaying Arab republics, which many academics continued to argue were structurally weaker than the region's monarchies.1

In this context, the Benghazi uprising in eastern Libya in February 2011 was widely portrayed as the start of yet another revolution — both nationwide and organic — that would soon see Muammar Qadhafi's regime swept from power by an overwhelming majority of the population. As the weeks dragged on, however, with Qadhafi still effectively in power and the bulk of the Libyan armed forces apparently remaining loyal, this narrative had to be abandoned and replaced by a new one depicting a desperate regime clinging to power by wielding extreme violence against its people and deploying vicious foreign mercenaries. Certainly, by March 2011 it was generally assumed that Qadhafi's fighters, whoever they were, would massacre thousands of civilians if they managed to re-enter Benghazi, and if the Western powers and their regional allies did not step up to the plate with some sort of humanitarian intervention on behalf of the “Libyan revolution.”

Although at the time several analysts did try to question the details underpinning these two interlinked narratives,2 it took more than five years before any real willingness emerged in Western government circles to investigate more thoroughly the events of 2011. Published in September 2016, for example, a British parliamentary report recognized that the eventual NATO-led intervention (Operation Unified Protector) had gone badly wrong and conceded that the intelligence it was based on was not necessarily credible in the first place. Entitled “Libya: Examination of Intervention and Collapse and the UK's Future Policy Options,” it drew the conclusion that former British Prime Minister David Cameron was primarily to blame for the ensuing chaos in the wake of Qadhafi's removal, due to “his decision-making in the [UK] National Security Council” and his “failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”3 But beyond this superficial and heavily politicized reading of the Libya conflict, which offered little insight into its root causes or the real objectives of Britain and the other intervening external powers, a substantial body of evidence has now emerged that allows for a much deeper understanding of the Libyan uprising and the NATO intervention. In particular, the contents of hundreds of recently declassified files, court-subpoenaed materials and leaked official correspondence strongly suggest that the two mainstream narratives of 2011, and even the British parliament's belated findings, have largely obscured the real reasons behind Qadhafi's removal and the methods used to make it happen.

After necessarily situating the Libyan conflict in its proper historical context and then identifying the patterns behind the numerous earlier attempts to remove Qadhafi from power, this article will draw heavily on this extensive and now accessible new evidence to demonstrate how the 2011 Arab Spring phenomenon was soon manipulated by external actors to provide diplomatic cover for the calculated dismantling of a Libyan regime that had remained largely resistant to the opening up of its economy to Western investment and, inconveniently, was still able to count on a significant domestic support base. Furthermore, it will be shown that, by this stage, the Libyan regime had not only failed to establish itself as a reliable partner in the long-running U.S. “War on Terror,” but had actually emerged as one of the strongest voices opposing the expansion of NATO and U.S. military power onto the African continent.

Within this more nuanced framework, the article will also reveal how the Western powers’ regime-change agenda in Libya in 2011 was to a great extent shielded from public scrutiny, with some of the most significant and visible roles being assigned to key regional Arab allies. In this sense, mindful of the ongoing domestic backlash to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and wary of further international criticism of their Middle East policies, the Western powers this time made sure to orchestrate better a web of compliant Arab proxies that could effectively provide most of the financing and on-the-ground logistical and intelligence support for those Libyans who were willing to oppose the regime, even if they were in a minority and even if their Arab Spring or “pro-democracy” credentials were impossible to verify or completely non-existent."

Full article here
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mepo.12310/full


And a list of countries USA has done similar to.

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
  • China 1949 to early 1960s
  • Albania 1949-53
  • East Germany 1950s
  • Iran 1953 *
  • Guatemala 1954 *
  • Costa Rica mid-1950s
  • Syria 1956-7
  • Egypt 1957
  • Indonesia 1957-8
  • British Guiana 1953-64 *
  • Iraq 1963 *
  • North Vietnam 1945-73
  • Cambodia 1955-70 *
  • Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
  • Ecuador 1960-63 *
  • Congo 1960 *
  • France 1965
  • Brazil 1962-64 *
  • Dominican Republic 1963 *
  • Cuba 1959 to present
  • Bolivia 1964 *
  • Indonesia 1965 *
  • Ghana 1966 *
  • Chile 1964-73 *
  • Greece 1967 *
  • Costa Rica 1970-71
  • Bolivia 1971 *
  • Australia 1973-75 *
  • Angola 1975, 1980s
  • Zaire 1975
  • Portugal 1974-76 *
  • Jamaica 1976-80 *
  • Seychelles 1979-81
  • Chad 1981-82 *
  • Grenada 1983 *
  • South Yemen 1982-84
  • Suriname 1982-84
  • Fiji 1987 *
  • Libya 1980s
  • Nicaragua 1981-90 *
  • Panama 1989 *
  • Bulgaria 1990 *
  • Albania 1991 *
  • Iraq 1991
  • Afghanistan 1980s *
  • Somalia 1993
  • Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
  • Ecuador 2000 *
  • Afghanistan 2001 *
  • Venezuela 2002 *
  • Iraq 2003 *
  • Haiti 2004 *
  • Somalia 2007 to present
  • Honduras 2009
  • Libya 2011 *
  • Syria 2012
  • Ukraine 2014 *
As the son of immigrants (India) I've always been conflicted on immigration.

- Many immigrants are great people who simply want a better life for themselves and their families. BUT, we have no obligation to help them outside of morality.
- Many immigrants go on to work necessary jobs and start businesses (my Dad opened a pharmacy). BUT, many immigrants also abuse the welfare system. Just go to Ozone Park/ Richmond Hills in Queens, New York City for example (been there many times). Hoards of Guyanese and Punjabi immigrants on welfare who waste their money on clothes, shoes, and cars, and the neighborhood has foreign music blasting and looks closer to a third world country than America.
- Many immigrants love America, but many also refuse to assimilate. They're right to hate us since we've caused so much shit around the world, but they're on our soil, so they have to assimilate.

I think a happy medium is:
1. Accepting only the smartest/ best qualified immigrants. Get the best of the best from around the world.
2. Have worker visas for the rest. No need to give them citizenship, but allow them to work and support their families back home.

I will say that most Americans have no idea how much shit America has caused worldwide since WW2. Most Americans are dumb as shit, though I will say that most immigrants are equally as dumb and blame America for 100% of their problems.
 
No they won't. A lot of the so-called "refugees" are economic migrants.
like who.

besides, when your country is in a constant state of war...your economy is gonna suck. cant find a job when your neighborhood is blown up.
 
like who.

besides, when your country is in a constant state of war...your economy is gonna suck. cant find a job when your neighborhood is blown up.

Not my problem. They can fix their own country or live in a shit-hole. I don't care which. I just don't want them in my country.
 
Did not read all that. All I know is that all the money to gaddadi has, didn’t really do any favours to him for his physical appearance and that being leader of a country for over 40 years can do a number on you ...

1b669e1b4b3ed88218c549a5ea0e6d21--muammar-gaddafi-famous-people.jpg


To...

gaddafi.jpg
 
that's why american soldiers in iraq, syria, etc deserve to be killed.
 
Colonization never ended for the US and it's EU partners. They just do it more sophisticated since WW2 and Geneva conventions which prevent naked aggression and theft - instead overthrow governments covertly which have to will of the people in mind and install western hirelings to sell resources cheap to Western Corps. This leaves poverty and destitution along with radical terror groups in countries affected.

Here is a journal article which details one way it's done in case of Libya in 2011. It's long so I'll just post abstract here and you can follow link if you want the whole story.

"

In the wake of the “Arab Spring” revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt in late 2010 and early 2011, the conventional narrative, at least in the Western media, soon became one of an unstoppable tidal wave of emancipation. This was expected to leave no stone unturned, at least in the decaying Arab republics, which many academics continued to argue were structurally weaker than the region's monarchies.1

In this context, the Benghazi uprising in eastern Libya in February 2011 was widely portrayed as the start of yet another revolution — both nationwide and organic — that would soon see Muammar Qadhafi's regime swept from power by an overwhelming majority of the population. As the weeks dragged on, however, with Qadhafi still effectively in power and the bulk of the Libyan armed forces apparently remaining loyal, this narrative had to be abandoned and replaced by a new one depicting a desperate regime clinging to power by wielding extreme violence against its people and deploying vicious foreign mercenaries. Certainly, by March 2011 it was generally assumed that Qadhafi's fighters, whoever they were, would massacre thousands of civilians if they managed to re-enter Benghazi, and if the Western powers and their regional allies did not step up to the plate with some sort of humanitarian intervention on behalf of the “Libyan revolution.”

Although at the time several analysts did try to question the details underpinning these two interlinked narratives,2 it took more than five years before any real willingness emerged in Western government circles to investigate more thoroughly the events of 2011. Published in September 2016, for example, a British parliamentary report recognized that the eventual NATO-led intervention (Operation Unified Protector) had gone badly wrong and conceded that the intelligence it was based on was not necessarily credible in the first place. Entitled “Libya: Examination of Intervention and Collapse and the UK's Future Policy Options,” it drew the conclusion that former British Prime Minister David Cameron was primarily to blame for the ensuing chaos in the wake of Qadhafi's removal, due to “his decision-making in the [UK] National Security Council” and his “failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”3 But beyond this superficial and heavily politicized reading of the Libya conflict, which offered little insight into its root causes or the real objectives of Britain and the other intervening external powers, a substantial body of evidence has now emerged that allows for a much deeper understanding of the Libyan uprising and the NATO intervention. In particular, the contents of hundreds of recently declassified files, court-subpoenaed materials and leaked official correspondence strongly suggest that the two mainstream narratives of 2011, and even the British parliament's belated findings, have largely obscured the real reasons behind Qadhafi's removal and the methods used to make it happen.

After necessarily situating the Libyan conflict in its proper historical context and then identifying the patterns behind the numerous earlier attempts to remove Qadhafi from power, this article will draw heavily on this extensive and now accessible new evidence to demonstrate how the 2011 Arab Spring phenomenon was soon manipulated by external actors to provide diplomatic cover for the calculated dismantling of a Libyan regime that had remained largely resistant to the opening up of its economy to Western investment and, inconveniently, was still able to count on a significant domestic support base. Furthermore, it will be shown that, by this stage, the Libyan regime had not only failed to establish itself as a reliable partner in the long-running U.S. “War on Terror,” but had actually emerged as one of the strongest voices opposing the expansion of NATO and U.S. military power onto the African continent.

Within this more nuanced framework, the article will also reveal how the Western powers’ regime-change agenda in Libya in 2011 was to a great extent shielded from public scrutiny, with some of the most significant and visible roles being assigned to key regional Arab allies. In this sense, mindful of the ongoing domestic backlash to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and wary of further international criticism of their Middle East policies, the Western powers this time made sure to orchestrate better a web of compliant Arab proxies that could effectively provide most of the financing and on-the-ground logistical and intelligence support for those Libyans who were willing to oppose the regime, even if they were in a minority and even if their Arab Spring or “pro-democracy” credentials were impossible to verify or completely non-existent."

Full article here
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mepo.12310/full


And a list of countries USA has done similar to.

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
  • China 1949 to early 1960s
  • Albania 1949-53
  • East Germany 1950s
  • Iran 1953 *
  • Guatemala 1954 *
  • Costa Rica mid-1950s
  • Syria 1956-7
  • Egypt 1957
  • Indonesia 1957-8
  • British Guiana 1953-64 *
  • Iraq 1963 *
  • North Vietnam 1945-73
  • Cambodia 1955-70 *
  • Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
  • Ecuador 1960-63 *
  • Congo 1960 *
  • France 1965
  • Brazil 1962-64 *
  • Dominican Republic 1963 *
  • Cuba 1959 to present
  • Bolivia 1964 *
  • Indonesia 1965 *
  • Ghana 1966 *
  • Chile 1964-73 *
  • Greece 1967 *
  • Costa Rica 1970-71
  • Bolivia 1971 *
  • Australia 1973-75 *
  • Angola 1975, 1980s
  • Zaire 1975
  • Portugal 1974-76 *
  • Jamaica 1976-80 *
  • Seychelles 1979-81
  • Chad 1981-82 *
  • Grenada 1983 *
  • South Yemen 1982-84
  • Suriname 1982-84
  • Fiji 1987 *
  • Libya 1980s
  • Nicaragua 1981-90 *
  • Panama 1989 *
  • Bulgaria 1990 *
  • Albania 1991 *
  • Iraq 1991
  • Afghanistan 1980s *
  • Somalia 1993
  • Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
  • Ecuador 2000 *
  • Afghanistan 2001 *
  • Venezuela 2002 *
  • Iraq 2003 *
  • Haiti 2004 *
  • Somalia 2007 to present
  • Honduras 2009
  • Libya 2011 *
  • Syria 2012
  • Ukraine 2014 *
Good article. Good resource.
 
There should be an 1~2% tax to those who support immigration and assilum. I would be willing to pay a that tax.
 
There should be an 1~2% tax to those who support immigration and assilum. I would be willing to pay a that tax.

They should put the immigrants as their neighbors and see how fast they change thier minds.
 
Last edited:
Are you? How about south americans. Those countries are predominantly christian
South americans are not flooding the USA or Europe, it's north(mexico) and central americans that mostly cross the border and caribbeans going by boat. Nor do they have the fame of rapefugees.

That list is also pathetic, Portugal 1974-1976 was an american coup?
Portugal was a right-wing dictatorship at the time, one of the US staunchest allies in the cold war, after the Carnation revolution a bunch of socialist rose to power, they let all the colonies go free and many of them fell under USSR influence.
Brazil in 1964 had a military takeover of the government, the USA was supportive of that but despite conspiracy theories they didn't cause the coup.
 
Maybe some people may consider me right wing?
Immigration is great and every country needs it. However bringing in immigrants that do not benefit the country is ridiculous.
Not wanting thousands of people who are brought up to hate the West, does not make that person a racist, it makes them intelligent.
 
South americans are not flooding the USA or Europe, it's north(mexico) and central americans that mostly cross the border and caribbeans going by boat. Nor do they have the fame of rapefugees.

That list is also pathetic, Portugal 1974-1976 was an american coup?
Portugal was a right-wing dictatorship at the time, one of the US staunchest allies in the cold war, after the Carnation revolution a bunch of socialist rose to power, they let all the colonies go free and many of them fell under USSR influence.
Brazil in 1964 had a military takeover of the government, the USA was supportive of that but despite conspiracy theories they didn't cause the coup.

Just come in legally.
Nobody is a racist/fascist/religionist or any other ist for wanting legal immigration.
 
Most of the people coming into Europe are not refugees and aren't even from war torn countries like Libya or Syria. They are also mostly young men with very few women and children or the elderly among them.

The irony is these economic migrants come here at the expense of actual refugees in need of help. But this whole issue isn't really about helping others, it's about virtue signalling and creating a new underclass of cheap labor and voters. People pushing the "refugees welcome" narrative are either liars or too stupid to understand what's going on.
 
then stay out of their countries and they will stay out of yours.
Islamic savages don't tend to stay out of your country even if you stay out of theirs. It's their religious duty to spread their religion and conquer kafirs.
 
Didn’t even read because your title spelled out your agenda...People are just so fucking dumb they don’t get it...Most normal Americans are fine with immigration, just come in legally , with a little humility, and with the spirit to contribute, and you will be warmly welcome. Come in and try and bring your fucking bullshit ideas and force it on others, and Fuck You, don’t let the door hit you on the way out...WHATS SO DIFFICULT?
 
The majority of people are not anti-immigrant. They just want to see a fair and reasonable immigration program and the current program that allows record numbers of people to flood into the country is not fair or reasonable.
 
Of course leftist SJW ideas of what "anti-immigration" is, is unsurprisingly being against illegals and economic migrants. Anything that's not open-border can fall into "anti-immigration" for them.

In that case the majority of people are anti-immigration. i.e. no poors. No that isn't racist. Poland Brexit Japan Hungary etc. know what's up.

People don't want immigration to be

- Economic migrants "I want to live there" types - i.e. all those poors from central and south America looking on the U.S.

- marriage loopholes. i.e. Pakistan and India arranged marriage. Daisy chain Importing an illiterate wife who just stays at home popping out babies on the government dime.

They should follow the rules and if you can't fulfill criteria such as a money threshold (i.e. you're not going to be asking for welfare) or have a job lined up with a minimum income level then you should be refused entry or deported.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top