Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

as every country that tries your long term view divebombs spectacularly into the ground on their way to becoming a third world country

Like the US in the 1700s? Or during the 1800s?

I mean, you could kinda argue what you're saying with the mass importation of negroes, and it's not a bad point, but in general you need population growth and the economic growth that comes with it to support an r-slured welfare state and to do better in the long-run. Obviously, there are problems with allowing anybody in with no filter and with too many at once, especially when your government has r-slurred restrictions on building more housing, or when they have low standards on welfare.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Online rightoids are r-slurred, they stick their heads on sand when you point out how awful declining fertility rates are and bring up the most mind boggling stupid anti immigration arguments.

Yes, ghettofication sucks, yes, filtering is right. But the belief they held that shutting off an entire country so it can become an empty mausoleum within 50 years is ackshually good and doing perfectly fine is ludicrous.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseynerd3: It's "stick their heads in the sand."

They're a lot like leftoids in that they have this ideal vision for society (which can be obtained, somehow) while ignoring all the unintended consequences that will come crashing down. Socialists are notorious for this. The rightoids don't care that most people don't mind immigrants. Obviously, there's a subgroup of immigrants who are reprehensible, but they take that in stride with any other subgroup that already lives in the country.

The main turnaround has been unfiltered immigration, which is consequently causing others to push too hard against immigration.

It's stupid.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.



Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.