Why are people here anti-immigrant?

[Deleted]

Immigration is all good if the destination country can integrate them correctly. If you can't, then it is probably better not to try for both the immigrants and the residents.

[Daelak]

If you want to know why some people are against immigration, that's why; we already sacrifice enough simply to support ourselves, bad choices and good choices aside. And while we should welcome those who can contribute, we should also be mindful that we have the homeless, the downtrodden, and the weak to help here in our own countries. If we can't help them, why should we be expected to help those flocking to our lands?

Because they are all human beings, and countries can do multiple things at one time.

All of these arguments by "concerned citizens" and "I'm anti-illegal immigrant not anti-immigrant guyzszs!" are rehashed racist and separatist arguments made since ratification of the US constitution. First it was Chinese, then Irish, then Italian, then Polish, then Indian, then Central American, then South American, then Middle Eastern. It doesn't matter where they come from, they will be used as a scapegoat to convince the weak minded, such as yourself, to help attach an emotional appeal to garner your support in creating a society where your own well-being will be worse off.

[PassingBy]

It's the same thing with the anti-immigration crowd. Unless of course you want to say you oppose Trump's desire to limit immigration from shithole countries, his call to restrict Muslims, his ban on mostly-Muslim nations, push to limit the VISA system, limit lottery immigration, and limit migration of families. When you can say that you are opposed to all of those, then I would believe you. You and I both know it's not going to happen, so my point stands. You are no different than the liberals who want to take away guns.

I mean I am not from the US, and here you can own guns only for hunting purposes, if you get a permit, for which you have to undergo a police check, a mental hospital check, be a part of a hunting club, and then every now and then police will come to your house and check if you are storing your guns properly (guns must be kept in a special safe, unloaded, the ammo should be stored in a separate safe away from the gun).

But isn't having a reasonable gun laws (background checks, no guns for crazy people, no guns for people that have been to jail, maybe no semi-automatic rifles, at least maybe not 25 of them for one guy) kind of a good thing?

As well as having reasonable immigration laws? (Background checks, priority for immigration for people with education or some skills that are actually needed by the employers in the country, etc)?

The discussion kinda always seems to be between "let us buy whatever guns we want, online without any checks and balances" and "those guns are killing our children get all the guns out of the streets", and "all mexicans are racists, dey took ma job" and "we should open the borders and let everyone in".

And those don't seem like reasonable positions.

[Daelak]

Immigration is all good if the destination country can integrate them correctly. If you can't, then it is probably better not to try for both the immigrants and the residents.

Can't wait to hear the correct way to become a American citizen? Who should they model after? The angst-ridden twenty-something young white male with a penchant for online trolling and the urge to be noticed by shooting up a school? Or how about the middle-aged white evangelical who is willing to compromise all of their publicly preached and droning about morality to support a completely inept and incompetent president?

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

Can't wait to hear the correct way to become a American citizen? Who should they model after? The angst-ridden twenty-something young white male with a penchant for online trolling and the urge to be noticed by shooting up a school? Or how about the middle-aged white evangelical who is willing to compromise all of their publicly preached and droning about morality to support a completely inept and incompetent president?

Groww upp.

[Machismo]

I mean I am not from the US, and here you can own guns only for hunting purposes, if you get a permit, for which you have to undergo a police check, a mental hospital check, be a part of a hunting club, and then every now and then police will come to your house and check if you are storing your guns properly (guns must be kept in a special safe, unloaded, the ammo should be stored in a separate safe away from the gun).

But isn't having a reasonable gun laws (background checks, no guns for crazy people, no guns for people that have been to jail, maybe no semi-automatic rifles, at least maybe not 25 of them for one guy) kind of a good thing?

As well as having reasonable immigration laws? (Background checks, priority for immigration for people with education or some skills that are actually needed by the employers in the country, etc)?

The discussion kinda always seems to be between "let us buy whatever guns we want, online without any checks and balances" and "those guns are killing our children get all the guns out of the streets", and "all mexicans are racists, dey took ma job" and "we should open the borders and let everyone in".

And those don't seem like reasonable positions.

Sure, most people would find restrictions like that good in theory, but that hasn't worked out so well in practice.

Of course, you went and took it too far. Should we have merit-based gun ownership, where only people with good jobs are allowed to own them? Should we determine gun ownership by skin color, nation heritage, or even religion?

I don't want gun restrictions. There are many liberals who want to ban large magazines, pistols, shotguns, "assault rifles," ammunition with lead in them, folding stocks, and a host of other things that have nothing to do with the actual individual.

The people calling for all those immigration restrictions are no different than the liberals who want to do the same with guns. Now, if a person wants to heavily restrict both, they are an authoritarian... but at least they are not hypocrites. The people who want to do one, but not the other, are just plain hypocrites.

[Unholyground]

Everyone is an Immigrant from Africa, just remember that.

[PassingBy]

Sure, most people would find restrictions like that good in theory, but that hasn't worked out so well in practice.

Of course, you went and took it too far. Should we have merit-based gun ownership, where only people with good jobs are allowed to own them? Should we determine gun ownership by skin color, nation heritage, or even religion?

I don't want gun restrictions. There are many liberals who want to ban large magazines, pistols, shotguns, "assault rifles," ammunition with lead in them, folding stocks, and a host of other things that have nothing to do with the actual individual.

The people calling for all those immigration restrictions are no different than the liberals who want to do the same with guns. Now, if a person wants to heavily restrict both, they are an authoritarian... but at least they are not hypocrites. The people who want to do one, but not the other, are just plain hypocrites.

If restrictions haven't worked well in practice, should we then just abolish any kind of those?

Like allow people to buy any kind of guns without any kind of restrictions, and then just open the borders for everybody?

Are people who are against that hipocrites too?

Or do you consider some restrictions to be better than others?

[Pratt]

It wasn't always like this here. At some point someone or a group of people decided this would be an effective indoctrination portal.

[Machismo]

If restrictions haven't worked well in practice, should we then just abolish any kind of those?

Like allow people to buy any kind of guns without any kind of restrictions, and then just open the borders for everybody?

Are people who are against that hipocrites too?

Or do you consider some restrictions to be better than others?

The issue is that it's a slippery slope, and is a restriction of freedoms and rights.

We have a poster on here who made a death threat. Should we take away the guns he proudly owns? Mind you, this guy is an avid 2A supporter and a die hard nationalist (SuperTony). So, take him as the example. He would be one of the last people to say he should have his guns taken away, but he's one of the first to cheer on restrictions to immigration.

The hypocrisy comes into play when you support restricting one, but not the other. If you want to make drastic restrictions to both gun rights and immigration, you are not a hypocrite. You just happen to be an authoritarian. Personally, I would go the other way, and go out of my way to not restrict either.

The United States is a country that really likes its firearms. Any restriction is going to be met with significant resistance. The same cannot be said for immigration. The populace is becoming more nationalistic every single year. And yes, that means they are largely becoming more hypocritical every year.

[AeneasBK]

A few hundred thousand a year. Yes. Since 1997 it's gone from about 50,000 a year to averaging 250,000/year for 20 years. I like how you see someone anti-immigrant and link a UKIP piece though, as if there's no where on the political spectrum someone can be anti-immigrant except fairly far-right. But if you think that hundreds of thousands of people don't strain already strained education and health systems, you're deluded.

As said, i'm happy to have the highly educated that come for secured work places.

It wasn't so much the UKIP part as the retardedness of blaming traffic on immigrants. Same as blaming the failing NHS on immigrants, it's almost textbook in fact. Government does something shitty (and it started with Labour, not a Tory, or a UKIP (lol 'far right') bash) so they can sell off piecemeal the NHS to their cronies; and when the system starts to grind; point to the migrants and say "We're just too full omg". Get a grip.

[Trassk]

I'm not Anti-Immigrant, I'm Anti-Mass-Immigration under the guise of Refugees.

I'm also anti-Idiots who bring their backwards ideologies into Western Countries and then complain when things aren't the same as the shithole they came from.

This, just this ^
Its facing the reality, rather then thinking your going to hurt your social justice pro points, that so many of these "refugees" arn't intact that at all

[Ozyorkbourne]

It wasn't so much the UKIP part as the retardedness of blaming traffic on immigrants. Same as blaming the failing NHS on immigrants, it's almost textbook in fact. Government does something shitty (and it started with Labour, not a Tory, or a UKIP (lol 'far right') bash) so they can sell off piecemeal the NHS to their cronies; and when the system starts to grind; point to the migrants and say "We're just too full omg". Get a grip.

Immigrants aren't the sole cause of problems for the NHS but health tourism is a big blackhole of unrecovered funds. Some of the NHS' big problems stem from management and waste where entire units are sold off, new ones are built/purchased, refitted and furnished, then closed a few years later - particularly in mental health, or paying literally fifty times the price of a medical product (massive gouging), or poor inventory where food is overordered. Fix those problems and you could employ enough staff to ease the tension at least a little. If you take my statement of 'immigrants strain the NHS' to mean they're the only problem then so be it, but given the topic is based around opposition to immigration, I included it as a point of a statement rather than make a statement on the NHS.

However, until the NHS' many problems are fixed, hundreds of thousands of people do, undeniably impact wait times and even A&E. If the problems that don't stem from migrants were fixed and more staff could be hired, then they aren't a problem.

[Strawberry]

Some swedes will. I won't, I'll pretend I don't know english if it's not obvious they're tourists here on a temporary visit. They should learn the language or leave the country. If people intend to live in Sweden then they should learn the language. I have no sympathy for anyone who claims it to be hard when I know people who have been here far less time, just a few years, than some immigrants who can't say anything beyond the basics after living here more than 10 years.

Fine, I'll buy it if you're being honest with your answer and actually agree with you.
But it's not ok to just dump immigrants in let's say, Rosengård and leave them there. They are surrounded by their own language and culture and don't need to learn the Swedish language.
Now why would Sweden do the above? Because you see, Sweden doesn't take in immigrants because the government is kind. There's EU money to be had here.

[Player Twelve]

Fine, I'll buy it if you're being honest with your answer and actually agree with you.
But it's not ok to just dump immigrants in let's say, Rosengård and leave them there. They are surrounded by their own language and culture and don't need to learn the Swedish language.
Now why would Sweden do the above? Because you see, Sweden doesn't take in immigrants because the government is kind. There's EU money to be had here.

We don't dump them in Rosengård or anywhere, really. They are the ones deciding to live in those areas, on their own accord through EBO if they don't like the ABO. After they've been processesed and had their application approved, we don't choose where they live, they do so on their own accord. People who are not refugees don't even have to take ABO and EBO into consideration as they don't end up in asylum facilities.

[NicoWolf]

Because they are all human beings, and countries can do multiple things at one time.

All of these arguments by "concerned citizens" and "I'm anti-illegal immigrant not anti-immigrant guyzszs!" are rehashed racist and separatist arguments made since ratification of the US constitution. First it was Chinese, then Irish, then Italian, then Polish, then Indian, then Central American, then South American, then Middle Eastern. It doesn't matter where they come from, they will be used as a scapegoat to convince the weak minded, such as yourself, to help attach an emotional appeal to garner your support in creating a society where your own well-being will be worse off.

What I read was "I have no real rebuttal to explain the economic impact of a displaced population on an already strained system, so I'll play the subtle racist card because no one wants to be a racist, right?"

Unless you can come up with a legitimate reason why we should accept droves of impoverished citizens from a foreign nation when our current system has enough problems as it is, aside from idealistic notions of love and brotherhood and guilt over shit you didn't have a hand in, at least be honest and just say you think I'm racist despite the fact I never mentioned race once.

[Alydael]

There was a time period the Arabs were big into science and education, but that ended when they started to worship. The Golden Age of Islam had ended many years ago. The Islam of then is not the Islam of now.

Agreed. Look at Islam currently. Where is the focus on scholarly pursuits (at all)? Where is the focus on innovation or progression (at all)? It is non existent. What is the purpose of it then? Sad......

[baskev]

I always see Western Europeans complaining about all the migrants flowing to their areas from the Middle East. They tend to be exceptionally hard working, sophisticated, peaceful people and I don't see a good reason for why you would be against them coming to your countries.

So many things about your statement are wrong. Even your thread question is wrong.

From the start:

Why are people here anti-immigrant?

Simple, you are on a american forum. Mmo- champion is american. No i am not saying All Americans are anti immigration. But they are kinda harder in pro or anti things then most country's.

I always see Western Europeans complaining about all the migrants flowing to their areas from the Middle East.

- First off , eastern Europeans are worse in opinion and acting towards refugee's then western europeans.
- Then small minority is very vocal, that why they sound so large.
- Most people you hear about being anti in europe, are more against extreme refugee's and wealth refugee's. And it is because of the sheer number of refugee's people have a problem with.
- the numbers. Western europe gets so many refugee's. To put it in to perspective. America ( who in part caused the destabilization of middle east) takes in about 1800 refugee's ( in 2015). Compare this to smaller country's in europe like the netherlands who have taken in 4800 that year. This might not sound much, but think of it like this. america is in people size 20 times bigger. and in land mass many times bigger then europe.

They tend to be exceptionally hard working, sophisticated, peaceful people and I don't see a good reason for why you would be against them coming to your countries

Against those we do not a problem. ( and against others i personally also do not have that much problem).



But lets talk why:
- Simple, first the amount of refugee's. They guessed it at 1,5 mil in 2015. Some say even as high as 3 mil.
- Not all of the country's are running that well. And if you as people do not have a lot of money and you need to share it with other people. Then you get mad.
- Extremist. No not talking just about terrorist. But here in the netherlands we have had cases where refugee's where so anti gay that they needed to remove gay people (refugee's) from the refugee center to a other one because of aggression. If you want to live here because of ( insert reason) you need to follow our laws and norms etc. And some of them just do not do this. And again , those are the ones you see the most.

[Elegiac]

Agreed. Look at Islam currently. Where is the focus on scholarly pursuits (at all)? Where is the focus on innovation or progression (at all)? It is non existent. What is the purpose of it then? Sad......

It demonstrates that Islamic is not in fact mutually exclusive with a rationalised and scholastic worldview and that other factors should be considered as to its current state.

[Daelak]

What I read was "I have no real rebuttal to explain the economic impact of a displaced population on an already strained system, so I'll play the subtle racist card because no one wants to be a racist, right?"

Unless you can come up with a legitimate reason why we should accept droves of impoverished citizens from a foreign nation when our current system has enough problems as it is, aside from idealistic notions of love and brotherhood and guilt over shit you didn't have a hand in, at least be honest and just say you think I'm racist despite the fact I never mentioned race once.

You can look at immigration, either undocumented, refugees fleeing from war, famine, etc., or otherwise from multiple angles; all which show empirical evidence that it is a boon and critical to long term national security, in terms of economic benefit, replacement rates in population, and the absolute advantage it gives to countries on the revolving end. Global brain and productive drain is a more devastating weapon than any weapon, resigning less free and open countries in dealing with the economic malaise and abysmal replacement rates needed to ensure l9ng term economic viability.