Usually some leftist politicians do care...
saying that Africa belongs to Africans and Asia belongs to Asians. Which I agree with,
But if I say Europe to Europeans they say it's racist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
World population and the gumball example, by Roy Beck
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
saying that Africa belongs to Africans and Asia belongs to Asians. Which I agree with,
But if I say Europe to Europeans they say it's racist.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Why on earth would you think I'd agree with them?
I'm not an ethno-Nationalist.
Because it is. So are the above statements (depending on what they mean by Africans, Asians and Europeans. Clearly by your standard you believe it refers to an ethnic group rather than a population - which I reject).
Deal with me, not the imaginary straw-leftists in your head.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Let's help the poor in their own countries AND bring in immigrants from the poorest of the poor AND bring in refugees from persecution and war.
That's exactly my point.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
And yet you present a talk by an individual who says we SHOULDN'T help them, and should not allow them to immigrate into developed countries (and who also conveniently believes in ethno-nationalism), and call him "wonderful".
The last sentence of his speech is: let's help them there.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
And yet he doesn't explain anything about what that means. Because he doesn't actually want to help them, he wants to stop them coming to his country.
And you agreed with him.
Because I know macroeconomics and banking law and I know that it's doable to help them there.
I wonder why those who support mass immigration to Europe are usually the same who idolize the banking dynasties that are the responsible for this problem in those countries.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Sure. But why not also allow them to immigrate?
Please stop inventing straw-people in your head. I'm a socialist. I am also pro-immigration. This is not a contradiction. The idea that we should curtail or stop immigration because it "doesn't solve poverty" is an insane non sequitur. We can - and should - do both.
Allowing people to immigrate helps them and helps us, economically. Why should we stop doing that? Give me an argument, not a strawman.
I wasn't talking about you. I said usually.
The answer is yes: immigration is rightful. Both are useful. Legal immigration and aiding them.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Cool.
So why did you start this thread presenting a talk by a guy making an argument about curtailing immigration, who is a known white nationalist, and why did you decry the declining birth rates in Europe because it will result in Europe having a different ethnography?
If he means curtailing immigration, I disagree with him.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
The title of the video literally contains the phrase "Immigration Doesn't Work". Roy Beck, the guy you said is "wonderful" is the editor of white nationalist magazine and believes in ethno-nationalism and is widely cited by numerous anti-immigration politicians.
Earlier, you said "Europe for Europeans" and decried changing ethnography within Europe. I'd like you to explain your position in more detail, if you could.
I and many fellow citizens prefer the Polish model to the British model, honestly.
That doesn't mean that I want to curtail legal immigration. Quite the opposite. Because political refugees and war refugees need to be welcomed. Not to mention those who apply regularly, that love my country.
Basically it's about the US taking 1 million migrants per year. Mostly from countries where we could do so much good, that is, helping these countries develop through investments, infrastructures etc...Is there a summary of this? Too early in the morning to watch a video.
Let's help them there, he concludes. Because taking 1 million people in will not solve the problems of the others, the hundreds of million people remaining there.
I agree in theory, although just for perspective, I took a look at this site: US Immigration by Country 2023 (worldpopulationreview.com)
Top 10 Countries of Origin for Immigrants to the U.S. (2020)
- Mexico — 100,325
- India — 46,363
- China — 41,483
- Dominican Republic — 30,005
- Vietnam — 29,995
- Philippines — 25,491
- El Salvador — 17,907
- Brazil — 16,746
- Cuba — 16,367
- South Korea — 16,244
Clearly, the top country of origin for immigrants to the US is Mexico.
Unlike Europe, which requires crossing a body of water to reach (unless you're entering through Russia, which doesn't seem very likely at present), we have a 2000-mile-long border with Mexico. I've always believed that we need to nurture and encourage a good neighbor policy with Mexico, not just due to immigration, but also due to the fact that we'd be a lot better off if we have a friendly, allied nation to the south. The US would be in a world of hurt if we alienated Mexico so much as to drive them into the arms of China or Russia.
It would be the same with any other Latin American country or any country geographically close to the United States. Decades of exploitation and mistreatment in Cuba came back to bite us in the backside when we suddenly had to face the prospect of a Soviet satellite 90 miles from our shores. Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam are on the top ten list above, and they're also lingering reminders of just how incompetent, greedy, and stupid our Cold War leaders were back in the day - and they've gotten even dumber now that the Cold War is over.
America has a long history of immigration, although there have also been times when America's leadership felt it necessary to limit or curtail immigration, such as the Immigration Act of 1924.
I believe that America's best chance of survivability in the coming decades and centuries will depend upon open, friendly, and warm relations with our neighbors in our own hemisphere. The US has expended an inordinate degree of time, political capital, and resources to support NATO and other regional alliances on the other side of the world, while taking Latin America for granted and mostly considering them quasi-vassal states. We can't do that anymore. We have to shift our emphasis to our own hemisphere, lest we end up having even more enemies right off our shores.
And if it means having more open borders and having more immigrants from Latin America, so be it, as it will help strengthen our cultural, familial, and political ties. It doesn't mean we have any requirement to let in everybody from everywhere, but Mexico and other Latin American countries are our neighbors.
May I reveal you something? Italians think the US border with countries that basically belong to a Latin culture which is considered perfectly compatible with Italy (or Spain, or Portugal).
On the contrary, the Mediterranean separates us from a culture which is very distant from us, from the linguistical, historical, religious point of view. And that's the type of migrants that come to Italy, Portugal and Spain.
PM Meloni has said it multiple times. That we should be free to prefer a type of immigration which is compatible with our culture.
There are Mexican or Venezuelan immigrants here as well, but there is absolutely no kind of cultural clash.
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
What does that even mean? How would that translate into an actual policy?
I think that United States and the countries of Latin America have common political origins, in that we were all once European-owned territories where popular uprisings and revolutions led to the creation of independent states. Simon Bolivar was considered the "George Washington of South America," and unlike the monarchies of Europe which the Metternich system wanted to prop up and maintain, they had no real power in the Americas.
The Monroe Doctrine, backed by the support of Britain and the Royal Navy, strongly discouraged the major powers of Europe from sending troops to Latin America to restore colonial control. (Britain was already establishing trade relations with the Latin American states, and it was in their interests to keep doing that, rather than having to deal with Spain.) Even Alexander I of Russia, the defeater of Napoleon, offered to send troops, but that never materialized because of British opposition.
Where I live in Southern Arizona, I'm about 60 miles from Mexico, although the border is really just an imaginary line when you think about it. Culturally, it's kind of an eclectic mix - I don't really know how to describe it easily, but I have seen first-hand how the Spanish-speaking cultures and English-speaking cultures do have the capacity to coexist and tolerate each other, as well as within the construct of the root Native cultures which also still hold a legacy and permeate the region.
We can mesh together, but the main problem (both presently and throughout history) has been the preponderance of ethnocentric, racist/nationalist types who believe that those whose skin color is darker than that of a brown paper bag should be considered second-class citizens. It's kind of complicated when viewed in context with US history and the various attitudes and policies on race, language, and nationality which have existed. We can't think in those terms anymore. There's a lot of bad blood and resentment already, but it needs to stop.
But I'm getting a strong impression that there are too many people who want to stir the pot and reignite old enmities and resentments. There's a strong xenophobic bent, where they want to cut immigration, build walls on the border, and establish some kind of Fortress America. Given some of the events and happenings taking place in the Eastern Hemisphere, I can see how it might build up fear in some people's minds. But we need to look at the world more rationally and not have our thoughts clouded by fear, anger, or hatred.
We may not ever have a world where individual nations are insular, pure, protected islands of themselves. Nationalism emphasizes protecting "cultural purity" and "sovereignty" to extreme proportions at times, and this can have the effect of actually destroying that which it purports to protect. All it really did was lead Europe to two horrific world wars in which they lost their sovereignty and found themselves as a virtual battleground between Russia and America. They were no longer in control of their own destiny, as their fate was tied to the whimsical decisions of politicians in Washington and/or Moscow. Nationalism is what led Europe to such a sorry fate, and yet, by abandoning nationalism and learning to cooperate with each other, Europe has flourished.