Another day, another shooting in the US

[Specineff]

You make the IQ studies real for me, bub.

Considering it is your conscious decision to stay blind and deaf to reality with your mantra of "Dey took er jerbs", I'm glad to have made you look into the mirror at last. You're welcome.

Rules and conditions - oh so unfair. There is nothing unfair about the rules and conditions 'our' government has set if you are here. Unfair would be a major improvement.

I'm talking about having to threaten to sue in order to get "your" government (notice that you're the one who started putting the possessives in this conversation, btw) to stop dragging their feet, giving ambiguous excuses about a priority date "being on review" limbo, and screwing people for over a decade *AFTER* they qualify for permanent residence BY THE RULES; so please tell me how is that fair (of course, you're probably going to say that it keeps legal aliens from spreading their "Employment Distortion Field" to protect American workers from harm, right?).

And no, don't give me the "Maybe they did something wrong" or "Well, that's the way things have to be if you want to stay here" excuses, because I seriously doubt anyone has to wait a decade or more to get the benefits they got notified about qualifying for in 2004, and needing to get legal counsel involved. It happened, and it's real.

I don't know dude, if I go over to a friend's they have some house rules like taking off shoes, I respect those and do so. As a guest, it should be distasteful to you to even think about complaining about it. America's house, America's rules.

Except that the host shouldn't ask the guest to hover over the ground to avoid using the gravity of their house after taking off those shoes, cook the food they were invited to partake in, and pay for the air they're breathing "Because uh... reasons" with a threat of keeping the shoes for 10 years if they decide to leave the house.

[jepjepjep]

...

[Lord Satori]

Quality post. Great contribution.

[Rob]

I'm talking about having to threaten to sue in order to get "your" government ...

I'm telling him to get over the butthurt that causes him to be racist and to justify it as "patriotism",

Or not even that but "I'm going to sue your ass" followed by howling "racism". I hope you talk to as many white people as you can and say these same sorts of things - making derisive comments about "God-fearing Americans", dismissing the actual citizen's concerns about jobs disappearing and so on. Do my work for me.

[Specineff]

Snip for brevity.

Edit: Decided to change my reply as this is not going to get us anywhere. We're going back and forth shooting barbs at each other with very little progress if any, so how about we both tone it down a notch or two and present and debate the merits and flaws of our respective arguments a bit more civilly? No personal attacks, insinuations, disses, vindiction or what have you from now on.

Can we do that?

[MintyTheCat]

dismissing the actual citizen's concerns about jobs disappearing and so on.

That's hardly a simple factor. If anything the existing systems of control and regulation are more over a threat to jobs. In the world we live in now it's almost juvenile to use this argument to 'throw the foreigners out', Rob. It has a whole lot more to do with policies, and in fact, the very policies that people vote in. To my mind not a lot works these days.

[Mischief Maker]

I'm just going to leave this here.

"I'm a good boyfriend!"

[Rob]

If anything the existing systems of control and regulation are more over a threat to jobs.

I think you missed the point of what I was saying by a mile or two, but I'll try to respond to your points anyways. To be clear, jobs are not even close to my primary concern.

It has a whole lot more to do with policies, and in fact, the very policies that people vote in.

Three-quarters of U.S. Hispanics prefer a big government which provides more services to a small one providing fewer services. This figure is significantly lower among the public at large.

Whites are the only broadly defined group that prefer conservative values and smaller government in America. With bigger government comes more "control and regulation". So, yes, with immigration we should consider their political leanings and "the very policies that people vote in". Hispanics (for instance) are not just people who tend to look different - they have their own values that do not align with predominant native white American values. Why should Americans (the unhyphenated kind with deep roots in this country) want American values to be replaced by Mexican or any other values while we get absolutely nothing in return? Check out this political ad the "Latino Victory Fund" ran in a recent election. This is the kind of belligerency we get in return for letting these people do whatever they want. We are getting a country where we get blamed and have to pay for minority failure and we get called racist regardless. It's a no-win situation for anyone not desiring a large pool of low skill labor. It's simply a government-sanctioned takeover by people who had nothing even tangentially to do with any part of the creation of this country. What is your view of the Islamification of London and other cities in your home country? Do you think that's a good thing?

Just one of the bonuses: Illegal Pot Farms Are Poisoning California’s Forests.

“It’s a massive problem,” says Craig Thompson, a wildlife ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service. “People don’t tend to grasp the industrial scale of what’s going on. There are thousands of these sites in places the public thinks are pristine, with obscene amounts of chemicals at each one. Each one is a little environmental disaster.”

Gabriel’s mother is from Michoacan, and a lot of what he’s seeing in California is starting to sound like the stories he hears from south of the border.

People bring their countries with them.

In the world we live in now it's almost juvenile to use this argument to 'throw the foreigners out', Rob.

People do need to be "thrown out" (deported), but keeping people out is best, and there is nothing juvenile about protecting your own. That's what men do.

[Mortificator]

As if anyone here could be more useless at protecting people than you are.

[Rob]

.

[jonny5]

So real men get together and throw the less fortunate out, but when your women are being raped at record levels, that's somebody else's problem? No wonder you're so quick to call people cucks.

And just so I'm clear, these are 'native' natives, right? Not 'native' whites, right?

[Eaglet]

This is the kind of belligerency we get in return for letting these people do whatever they want. We are getting a country where we get blamed and have to pay for minority failure and we get called racist regardless. It's a no-win situation for anyone not desiring a large pool of low skill labor. It's simply a government-sanctioned takeover by people who had nothing even tangentially to do with any part of the creation of this country. What is your view of the Islamification of London and other cities in your home country? Do you think that's a good thing?

This is exactly what is happening in my own country.
Mass immigration from retarded cultures with low skills for the job market have led to a total systemic welfare collapse (retirement age is going to be raised, working pensions have bombed to pay for the whole thing, pensioneers get kicked out of retirement homes to rebuild them for Hazari Iranian Afghanis that lie about being minors in order to surf the welfare system and gang rape their way through the country, etc. etc.).
This is all done from the top with the excuse of acting humanitarian while the people who're actually living under terror get shit all while foreign aid (the kind that actually makes a difference) is reallocated to pay for the skyrocketing costs of economic immigrants.
A belief that was long held was that these people we imported would eventually gain enough skills to be able to join the work force and contribute to tax money or take on low skilled jobs that nobody wanted (even those are in high demand now with academic inflation and technological successes).
It turns out in reality that it takes the average immigrant above 8 years to get their first job and honestly, who could blame them? A family with a mother, father and five children get more money from welfare by just sitting on their asses than working two full time low skilled jobs.

It's a belief and system that is set up for failure and societal collapse.

[Specineff]

So real men get together and throw the less fortunate out, but when your women are being raped at record levels, that's somebody else's problem? No wonder you're so quick to call people cucks.

And just so I'm clear, these are 'native' natives, right? Not 'native' whites, right?

Oh, snap.

[Rob]

This is exactly what is happening in my own country.

I've seen a bunch of stories, but hard to know what is true. Interesting to see some corroboration.

So real men get together and throw the less fortunate out, but when your women are being raped at record levels, that's somebody else's problem? No wonder you're so quick to call people cucks.

And just so I'm clear, these are 'native' natives, right? Not 'native' whites, right?

What an exasperatingly stupid post you've made, and from a Canadian. Yes - aboriginals. Aren't you aware of native issues as a Canadian? They and their communities have problems that are unique to them. Read this to learn something about the people that are living outside of Toronto.

[Specineff]

Rob, are you calling his argument stupid because it has no merit, or because it throws a wrench in your "American people good, Foreign people low-IQ" rhetoric? Please, do answer my question directly, with no distractions or ad-hominems, veiled or not.

[Rob]

What in the fuck are you even talking about? Maybe avoid these types of threads and stick to the cartoon pony stuff.

[Specineff]

What in the fuck are you even talking about? Maybe avoid these types of threads and stick to the cartoon pony stuff.

First: What I'm talking about? All right, here it is: I asked you a question, so please use that non-low IQ of yours and answer me: Are you calling his argument stupid because it has no merit, or because it throws a wrench in your rhetoric? Hope that clarifies it.

Two, you hold no power over me. So no. I can visit this thread regardless of your feelings in the matter, so deal with it.

Seriously, for someone who spends his time pointing fingers at others for being reactionary, low-IQ and what have you, your response was very knee-jerked. Please, take a breath and think before jumping onto the keyboard and typing away like brah, brah.

[Skykid]

Rob, are you calling his argument stupid because it has no merit, or because it throws a wrench in your "American people good, Foreign people low-IQ" rhetoric? Please, do answer my question directly, with no distractions or ad-hominems, veiled or not.

Hmm, I'm not sure man.

Maybe because you're in the thick of the argument you have a different perspective, but you keep citing Rob's responses as being aggressive and curt - but they don't really come across that way to the casual observer. I think he's just outlined a fact which he believes backs up his argument and provided a source. Although I don't condone everything he has mentioned previously (and honestly, I didn't read it all) when you're debating something you do need to have both parties stay on topic and actually discuss. Otherwise is gets very tired and cyclical.

Rather than just say everything he posts is racist and ad-hominem, if you address the points he believes are issues relating to immigration then we may actually get a discussion underway rather than me popping in here every now and then to see two people unable to communicate banging their heads against a wall.

Unfettered immigration DOES have its problems, and it doesn't make anyone a racist to say that. The Swedish government strategy Eaglet outlined above is almost carbon for what the U.K. Government practiced from the 70s onward, and it didn't work here either, believe me. The strain on public services and employment has been borderline catastrophic to the point that spending cuts robbed single mothers and the elderly of their benefits, increased the retirement age, pushes the NHS closer and closer to privatization, and saw cities halved and sold to the Chinese.

[Blinge]

The strain on public services and employment has been borderline catastrophic to the point that spending cuts robbed single mothers and the elderly of their benefits, increased the retirement age, pushes the NHS closer and closer to privatization, and saw cities halved and sold to the Chinese.

That's a hell of a lot to lay at unfettered immigration's feet, especially as the UK hasn't actually had unfettered immigration.

You're falling into the familiar trap of blaming foreigners for everything. I mean, it's easy to do. There's enough "sources" out there to fuel a man's confirmation bias to the end of his days.
The NHS privatisation point especially lacks far more important angles on causation and motive.

[Skykid]

To clarify: I'm not laying the economic woes of Britain squarely at the feet of its immigration policies. There are manifold reasons for the position of today, most of which are attributable to mismanagement on the part of white British men and women residing in government.

And I'm only going to say this once because I don't want to end up in a discussion that goes in circles because nobody reads anything with any degree of actual consideration, and everybody approaches everybody else's comments with a pre-emptive bias:

In the 60s the government introduced a long term strategy which involved emigrating people to the UK - and between 1965-72 it was primarily Indians - to create new business and a low paid workforce that would prop up existing businesses and allow them to turn more profit. They also increased immigration by encouraging foreigners within the commonwealth to come for work and granted passports and citizenship to many that took up root. The idea in theory is totally sound, and actually ended up being beneficial in the intended way for a while. The issue occurred when subsequent governments and increasingly liberal viewpoints lost control of the immigration process. And I don't mean lost control at a ground level, but in terms of long-term foresight, which ended up becoming a critical long-term oversight.

No matter which way you look at it, population versus available jobs, available resources, available benefits and available welfare is a real issue. It has nothing to do with the colour of anyone's skin. This is an issue of economy and not race; and immigration in itself is an issue of economy when you are emigrating people who don't contribute to it. It's the tipping of the scale when the ideology goes tits up: you went in for more skilled workers and ended up with less skilled workers, and in-turn a real strain on public funds.

And before anyone shouts it out there are plenty of errors that have been made unrelated to immigration, but that still doesn't make it exempt from requiring effective management and being a talking point on real terms. In my current state, I'm also living in somebody else's country. Nearly all of the foreigners I know here are what you would call skilled: pilots, teachers with the appropriate degrees; Indonesian, Malaysian, Indian and Pakistani students studying in the local medical university. It's an extreme climate where you never see a foreigner working anywhere outside of a school or a highly specialized practice, but it's been managed this way to ensure that in a country of a billion people any foreigners residing long term are a benefit and not a strain. Japan and Korea are almost exactly the same, incidentally.

Britain has certainly created a problem for itself in terms of the population that it can effectively handle. Between 2001 - 2011 Britain experienced a 70% population increase - the highest in history - with 7.5 million being foreign born entities. Some people may consider the term "unfettered" to apply when taking into account that sum in the space of a single decade.

I'll finish this with a question. If you believe immigration management is a non-issue and doesn't have any detrimental effect on a country's resources, do you then expect the immigration practice of the last three decades to:

A: Increase on its current path (i.e, become more relaxed and more open and encourage more immigration)?
B: Prove so popular and forward thinking that other countries around the world will follow suit and copy Britain's immigration policies?
C: Be considered an error by Britain and other countries who will then seek to amend and tighten their immigration policies while tiptoeing around sensitive issues, so as never ever to repeat the issue again?

The answer is already C so it's a bullshit question. The point is it's now widely recognised as a policy that has caused more problems than it's solved, and that's because without some level of stringency you can't rely on the majority of migrants to improve your economic outlook.

This is not a question of 'them and us', so please don't misunderstand me. It's simply a question of numbers, control and ensuring economic stability for the betterment of any one individual country's future.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

This is not a question of 'them and us', so please don't misunderstand me. It's simply a question of numbers, control and ensuring economic stability for the betterment of any one individual country's future.

Unfortunately the current global political climate doesn't seem to support rational discussion around immigration policy - if you profess support for any measure of controls you're seen as a right-wing racist and if you profess support for relatively relaxed borders you're a left-wing neoliberal. Everyone wants to neatly frame up complex issues into "us vs them".

It almost seems as if it were political suicide to want to have a sensible, nuanced discussion in terms of what makes sense in terms of population growth and immigration.

[FinalBaton]

Hmm, I'm not sure man.

Maybe because you're in the thick of the argument you have a different perspective, but you keep citing Rob's responses as being aggressive and curt - but they don't really come across that way to the casual observer. I think he's just outlined a fact which he believes backs up his argument and provided a source. Although I don't condone everything he has mentioned previously (and honestly, I didn't read it all) when you're debating something you do need to have both parties stay on topic and actually discuss. Otherwise is gets very tired and cyclical.

Rather than just say everything he posts is racist and ad-hominem, if you address the points he believes are issues relating to immigration then we may actually get a discussion underway rather than me popping in here every now and then to see two people unable to communicate banging their heads against a wall.

Unfettered immigration DOES have its problems, and it doesn't make anyone a racist to say that. The Swedish government strategy Eaglet outlined above is almost carbon for what the U.K. Government practiced from the 70s onward, and it didn't work here either, believe me. The strain on public services and employment has been borderline catastrophic to the point that spending cuts robbed single mothers and the elderly of their benefits, increased the retirement age, pushes the NHS closer and closer to privatization, and saw cities halved and sold to the Chinese.

Great post. and your following one too. I too find it ridiculous that we can't discuss the number of immigrants allowed in per year and the immigration requirements/skills, without being called racists and fascists and nazis.


I thought this bit summarized things well :

No matter which way you look at it, population versus available jobs, available resources, available benefits and available welfare is a real issue.

Very well said!

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Britain has certainly created a problem for itself in terms of the population that it can effectively handle. Between 2001 - 2011 Britain experienced a 70% population increase - the highest in history - with 7.5 million being foreign born entities. Some people may consider the term "unfettered" to apply when taking into account that sum in the space of a single decade.

I think your source on those numbers might have added a zero...? 7 percent, not 70 per the 2011 Census, though this is still the largest change in a 10-year period recorded: From the 2011 Census:

The population of the UK in 2011 was 63.2 million, the largest it has ever been. Between 2001 and 2011, the UK population grew by 4.1 million, nearly a 7 per cent increase. This is the largest decennial percentage change recorded since 1961.

Over the last hundred years the population of the UK (as currently constituted) has increased by 21.1 million (50 per cent).

Nearly all of the foreigners I know here are what you would call skilled: pilots, teachers with the appropriate degrees; Indonesian, Malaysian, Indian and Pakistani students studying in the local medical university. It's an extreme climate where you never see a foreigner working anywhere outside of a school or a highly specialized practice, but it's been managed this way to ensure that in a country of a billion people any foreigners residing long term are a benefit and not a strain. Japan and Korea are almost exactly the same, incidentally.

That being said, is that really ideal? Should the label of "unskilled" immediately disqualify everyone? There's a lot of stuff such as ethnic restaurants and grocery stores to be grateful for that wouldn't be available without the immigrants who owned and ran them. I don't know how the UK works in terms of immigration policy, but something like a system where X% of total Y% immigration allowed per year has to be "skilled" category immigrants seems like a potential compromise.

[Blinge]

Unfortunately the current global political climate doesn't seem to support rational discussion around immigration policy - if you profess support for any measure of controls you're seen as a right-wing racist and if you profess support for relatively relaxed borders you're a left-wing neoliberal. Everyone wants to neatly frame up complex issues into "us vs them".

Cheers Roo.

So if the major problem for the UK is overpopulation..
Closing borders wouldn't fix that at this point.

Aha, skykid committed statistical crime, tear it all down!

[Skykid]

Britain has certainly created a problem for itself in terms of the population that it can effectively handle. Between 2001 - 2011 Britain experienced a 70% population increase - the highest in history - with 7.5 million being foreign born entities. Some people may consider the term "unfettered" to apply when taking into account that sum in the space of a single decade.

I think your source on those numbers might have added a zero...? 7 percent, not 70 per the 2011 Census, though this is still the largest change in a 10-year period recorded: From the 2011 Census:

Sorry, it's a grammatical/phrasing error. The stat is a 70% population increase between 2001-2011 of foreign settlers within the country - not an increase of the general population (that would be madness!)

"About 70% of the population increase between the 2001 and 2011 censuses was due to foreign-born immigration. 7.5 million people (11.9 percent of the population at the time) were born abroad, although the census gives no indication of their immigration status or intended length of stay."

When looking for the statistic on that census - which I'd seen the results of last time this discussion arose - Wikipedia was the first hit, so it could well be completely wrong. But hopefully I made my point well enough with the rest of the post.

And with that, I'm out!

[Xyga]

I too find it ridiculous that we can't discuss the number of immigrants allowed in per year and the immigration requirements/skills, without being called racists and fascists and nazis.

Aaaaaaaaaand who fucking spoon-feeds you guys with that ridiculous idea?

God, you guys buying that shit maakes you their favourite type of customers.

[GaijinPunch]

Unfettered immigration DOES have its problems,

Which cuntry are you writing this post from again?

[FinalBaton]

Aaaaaaaaaand who fucking spoon-feeds you guys with that ridiculous idea?

God, you guys buying that shit maakes you their favourite type of customers.

wut?

are you talking about sjw flaming this perfectly sensible topic to get a rise out of people who will engage them and give them their 5 minutes of fame? because if so then it's true that they infuriate me and I sometimes can't help but to engage them in a(hopeless I reckon) discussion. I should ignore them though. and not give them the attention they seek. I fully realize that but goddamit, it's so tempting sometimes

[jonny5]

What an exasperatingly stupid post you've made, and from a Canadian. Yes - aboriginals. Aren't you aware of native issues as a Canadian? They and their communities have problems that are unique to them. Read this to learn something about the people that are living outside of Toronto.

Come now Rob, I was well aware of what you meant and we both know that, I was just more questioning it as a couple posts above you were going on about 'native whites' - I was becoming confused about what native actually meant at that point. Also, you going on about what 'real men' do and apparently that is throwing foreigners out of your white utopia, but when presented with evidence of shocking levels of rape in your state, it's immediately 'x-racial group's' fault, and blown off. Even if it isn't WHITE women being raped, this would still seem like a manly cause worth fighting against, no? It just seems like to you America is white people, anybody else is a foreigner, any issues relating to any other racial group is somebody else's problem. Those native americans, they are American, no? So would this not be an American problem? Or because they arent WHITE americans, its just an aboriginal problem?

[Xyga]

Aaaaaaaaaand who fucking spoon-feeds you guys with that ridiculous idea?

God, you guys buying that shit maakes you their favourite type of customers.

wut?

are you talking about sjw flaming this perfectly sensible discussion to get a rise out of people and give them the attention they seek? because if so then it's true that they infuriate me and I sometimes can't help but to engage them in a(hopeless) discussion. I should ignore them though.

Nevermind I shouldn't have quoted you. I was in fact considerably more interested in what SkyKid would say.