Why I am ambivalent on Immigration

Because first of all I don’t believe it’s wise for one group to become a burden on another.

Even the poor Syrians, whom my heart goes out to, I believe shouldn’t burden (even though the governments may deserve it) the Europeans with their unfortunate problems.

As well the Mexicans and illegal’s who I honestly believe hurt the US economy and have therefore become a burden on the American people.

On the other hand my heart deeply feels for the poor Mexicans and their lovely children and don’t want to see them thrown out of the country.

Also in the Syrian problem I feel deeply for their plight, again, particularly the children, and want to see them safe and to have a better life that they’ve lost.


I hope there can be a solution to these issues where people in dire need of help can get it but without doing injustice to another country, another people.

Of course if the generosity of another people is there then that may be a great solution.

originally posted by: Willtell
Because first of all I don’t believe it’s wise for one group to become a burden on another.

Even the poor Syrians, whom my heart goes out to, I believe shouldn’t burden (even though the governments may deserve it) the Europeans with their unfortunate problems.

As well the Mexicans and illegal’s who I honestly believe hurt the US economy and have therefore become a burden on the American people.

On the other hand my heart deeply feels for the poor Mexicans and their lovely children and don’t want to see them thrown out of the country.

Also in the Syrian problem I feel deeply for their plight, again, particularly the children, and want to see them safe and to have a better life that they’ve lost.


I hope there can be a solution to these issues where people in dire need of help can get it but without doing injustice to another country, another people.

Of course if the generosity of another people is there then that may be a great solution.

Personally, I hope they do throw every illegal out on their ears.

And leave the muzzies to it.

They can fix their broken culture or die because of it.... Either works me.

But i'm an A-hole.

So don't listen to me.

Remove the bad ones. Help the good ones.
That is probably a little idealistic and unrealistic.
That's how I would do it in a perfect world.
I live on the Texas-Mexico border.
I have many dear friends that are not legal citizens.
There is also a lot of garbage coming over the border that could be taken to the burn-pile for all I care.
I could say the same about a lot people who reside here legally.

a reply to: Willtell

I believe that people at risk are, and should be, the responsibility of whomsoever can best provide safety, security, and freedom. Since those things do not exist in the Middle East in any way, shape, or form recognisable by reasonable people, I believe that it falls to those outside the Middle East to help those fleeing for their lives as much as possible.

Given the fact that the nations most up in arms about the influx, are those with the most spare resources, those with the most government waste and fraud inherent in their governmental systems, I am inclined to believe that we, certainly in Britain (where tens of billions of pounds are deliberately wasted by government, by way of poorly written contracts with their suppliers and partners), are in a position to provide that security, that safety. I believe therefore that we must.

Our nation as it stands today, was built upon the flogged corpses of other civilisations which we conquered, enslaved, or impoverished in times past. We will always owe the world a debt for that, and I believe failure to recognise that is a disease worth curing.

a reply to: Willtell

I don't understand how the answer to the poor, unfortunate people is for other nations to absorb them.

Taking in alleged "refugees" and alleged "unaccompanied minors" is just a bandage, not a cure.

If nations that produce these refugees and illegal immigrants are screwing their citizens over so badly, then it's time for the rest of the civilized world to take a tougher stance when dealing with those nations.

That being said, nothing will be done (as admittedly I'm a card-carrying member of the NWO is well under way type of person).

a reply to: Willtell

You are confusing mass immigration with plain old immigration.

The right for people to move to another country which needs their skills is universally acknowledged and rightly so. That's plain old immigration.

The indiscriminate movement of people en masse from third world countries to first world countries is irrational and potentially disastrous for those countries, which is why few people with normal brains actually agree with it. That's mass immigration.

There is a growing resentment against mass immigration in the US and Europe, which is why sob stories are used in the news media to persuade us to continue to tolerate it.

The more sensible amongst us who can see the big picture will see this for what it is and dismiss it out of hand.

I think in an ideal world I'd invite all Syrians to Britain. In fact I would go and transport all the Syrians out of Syria to Britain and when Syria was empty I would move all British citizens to live in Syria complete with our money and infastructure.
Of course after we had put their country on the right track, like making the whole country fertile and productive, they would want it back.
Of course we would take our money with us, I hope all you people don't think that they are coming just for our money?

a reply to: crayzeed

If I have understood your suggestion correctly, then I must make you aware of some things before you repeat it in less...accommodating social circumstances.

First of all, you said that you want to take our nations money and infrastructure to Syria.

Well money is easy enough to move, it's just a bunch of zeros with some other numbers in front of it anyway. No sweat there really, aside from shifting the stock exchange without dropping a single digit from any account or transaction of course. But the infrastructure?

So, for the record, you are talking about schools, hospitals, doctors surgeries, universities, council offices, gas and water networks, fibre optic cables, electricity cables, power stations, fuel depots, tax mainframe architecture, military sites and equipment, intelligence architecture like the GCHQ Cheltenham office and its massive amount of built in, hardened tech, all the bunkers we have in this country, not to mention the London Underground railways, the train network in general, and of course the roads...

Building those things to our specifications in Syria would be ruinously expensive. Most of the infrastructure we have in this country is based on, laid over, or in some cases has components which were first used in the Victorian era. Building any one of those networks from scratch would require the spending of the GDP of the nation over ten years, or something like it and would take an age. To build Britain again from the ground up, ANYWHERE would be a job which could bankrupt an entire damned continent. Further more, to build it in A GOD DAMNED DESERT would be next to bloody impossible, since the architectural solutions we have used in our nation thus far have been based on the idea of building on something other than sand and unexploded anti personnel mines! So not only would we be transplanting infrastructure of massive proportions, but most of it would have to be completely redesigned for the new climatological circumstances that Britain 2:The Chap Rides Again, would find itself in.

And then you come to the crux of the problem. You see, our entire defence strategy as a nation is based upon two very important points. First, we are surrounded by water, and used to have a bloody terrifying navy. Second, the only other way to strike at us from the continent, used to be to fly big planes full of munitions over our nation, and drop them on our heads, which is why we had an Air Force which was the envy of the world at one point.

However, when your defence doctrine gets its paradigm totally and utterly kiboshed, and you are surrounded by nations which have a history of extremist uprisings, beheadings, and marauding nutcases with black flags and lots of weaponry, that rather changes things for the worst, because rather than having any decent natural barrier between yourself and your potential enemies, you just have a massive, gargantuan bloody border to protect.

In short, that is a bloody awful plan, even if you leave aside that the vast majority of even remotely Celtic persons left in the British Isles, would rapidly die of heat stroke and sunburn in Syria. In short, if you thought this through, and still thought it was a good idea, the only reason you can of come to that conclusion, is if you were basically spouting rhetorical nonsense rather than coming up with a genuine action plan.

Not only is that unhelpful, but it detracts from your point, because even with all our money, and all our expertise, we would only be a DIFFERENT kind of screwed than the current population of Syria, if placed under the same geopolitical circumstances, not necessarily a better kind either.

Money is not the problem they are having there. A lack of international will to see the violence there stopped, to see a bullet in the head of every member, of every faction, every government solider, and every extremist rebel in the place, WITHOUT causing a humanitarian crisis in collateral damage, those are what is allowing this mess to continue. While it does, we would be better off housing those who have been fortunate enough to get out of there, than trying to prove our superiority by bankrupting Europe by moving our entire nation to the region, getting many of our population killed for no reason, and getting thoroughly smacked down as we realise our own self importance really WAS a sign of an unhealthy national ego!

Sweet merciful Christ. It should not be necessary to explain this crap to someone who can tie their own shoes in the morning.

originally posted by: Willtell

...
As well the Mexicans and illegal’s who I honestly believe hurt the US economy and have therefore become a burden on the American people.

---

On what information do you base your belief that "the Mexicans and illegal’s" "hurt the US economy"?

a reply to: TrueBrit
My post was a tongue in cheek solution you take too seriously.
But I would take your suggestion about international aid with sceptisism. Look at the ME region whether Iran, Iraq or Syria these countries were took over be a grass roots movements not goverment or internationally backed movements.
Take those people in Northern Syria and Iraq that are supposedly creating this mass movement of people. They started with a grass root organisation ( I sincerly believe it was not backed by any government) and grew to take over a country sized area. Now why can't these people they are displacing take up arms and drive them out of their country as they out number them many times over.
I could list inumerable countries (and so could you if you thought about it) where the people, "rebels", have taken their countries off the ruling faction. It's peoples will that can win in the end not interference by foriegn powers as the foriegn powers only want to put in their puppets which leads to dissatisfaction by the people.
In the end THEY must put their own house in order but therein lies the problem as they are still in the tribal system. ie. one tribe against another, one sect against another and because of that internation aid would only complicate matters as already been proven in that area.