my thoughts on immigration what about yours?

Post Reply New Topic

There is no such right. Find it in the Constitution. You won't.

ruveyn

why are you making assumptions?
tell me why please.

1. i never said i supported big business profit. i said: if someone ELSE wants to do YOUR job, at half the pay. you should step aside, or offer the same thing. the one "stealing" your job is making a sacrifice. why shouldnt you?
you assumed its easyer for them cus they live 10 in a home, then well YOU do the same thing, or shut up and find a new job.

2. theyre not "wonderfully hard working" stop putting words in my mouth, cus it pisses me off. theyre: offering a job to half the pay. get it? thats what theyre doing: "hey, pay me half" sure, why should i keep you, and pay twice?
they cant get that deal at home. its not their fault, its reality and circumstance. isnt that what honest-hard-working-white-people do as well? look for a better payroll?

3. that goes for tiny tiny little shops, okay, SMALLLL shops, okay? it goes for the smallest shop in the f*****g universe. so dont make any more eager assumptions about me about "supporting big business profit"

its nothing but xenophobia, and people only notice the _different_ foreigners.
norwegians notice the polish and the serbs, but the majority immigrant group here are swedes and brits.
why arent we blaming the swedes and brits for taking our jobs?
something tells me they are taking the GOOD jobs as well.

this reminds me of when I was a teenager in the 1960's. I was carefully taught that men were paid more for the same job because they had financial responsibilities to fulfil and people depended on them. I, on the other hand was working until I got married, and if I protested, then I was told I would understand later, when I was more mature.

So I never made a living wage and had to live with other girls, something I was not very good at. I sang on the streets in Cambridge and I watched young men passing me by, going to classes at Harvard wearing a fedora and tie and nice wool suits, secure in their places in the world. I watched women my age getting a big church wedding with family and friends and dresses and rice. . the whole enchilada. But not for me, in the land of my forefathers.

They never noticed me, they never put a quarter in my guitar case. And I sing really well, too!


I wonder why people think that they can't slip down the rungs of the same ladder? What is it that makes them think that they are assured a place in the world and somehow it is outrageous that the world turns and their place has changed? forefathers, too.

and as for illegal aliens, we left the border open. Thieves walk in when you leave the door open. It is the homeowners responsibility to lock the door. What did they think was going to happen? Why did they not notice it years ago? Oh, yeah, it wasn't a problem until it reached critical mass.

By the end of this century there will be NO "European" countries left on the face of the earth.

The English will be a minority in their own country as will be the Germans, Dutch, Swiss, French, Americans and Australians.

But at the same time Japan will still be 99.9% Japanese and China will still be 99.9% Chinese. India will still be 99.9% Indian.

So why do we have to invite "multiculturalism" as a good thing?

"OMG. These poor people from failed countries would like somewhere better to live"

Well so what?

Are the Japanese stupid enough to say "Let's invite a few million Sudanese to come and live with us"

I would move to Japan except they wouldn't let me in!

this is bygotry and stupidity at its most impressive.

let me ask you, if immigrants keep entering, why does that mean 700 million europeans will dissapear?

dont even answer it, im not interested in stupidity. if i wanted stupidity i'd watch mtv.

i just wanted to make a point, you should be ashamed of having published such a moronic statement.

A typical European leftist who can't string together an argument of any kind. Wombat's post made a lot more sense than yours did.


He never wrote that, he stated "By the end of this century there will be NO "European" countries left on the face of the earth". Note the inverted commas around European. Moreover your extreme leftwing pro-multiculti stance isn't really that popular these days in many European countries. Lots of us are sick of mass immigration and will vote for anyone who'll stop it.

Why does it mater if Mexicans, Asians, or any other race migrates. People are people, why should some artifical line on a map keep them from traveling. We don't have to go through any mumbo-jumbo immigration laws to move from Mississippi to Nevada.. why should people have to to move from Nigeria to Canada or from Cuba to the USA?

People create jobs, the more people the more demand for goods & services.

If you have business that requires your presence in Japan you can get a visa and an extended term residential permit to live there. You will not have any citizenship rights but you can reside there, and do most of the things a resident has to do.

The Japanese have never composed an Emma Lazarus poem ... Give me your tired, your poor... etc. etc.

ruveyn

WOW I just love it when good christian folk demonstrate a working knowledge of their faith

Of course, those same seemingly entitled English speaking populations never considered speaking Cherokee or Sioux or Huron as they immigrated across the North American continent. Why shouldn't the new immigrants feel the same way

Ahh sinsboldly how naive of you, those good white folk were not immigrants. No they were explorers, bringers of the true faith, saviours of the savages.

In Aus the brits had a simple solution to this dilemma, declare the indigenous population non human and categorise them with the rest of the native fauna.

Its funny how people with money have very little trouble living where ever they want. I would have no borders, but then I would not try and attempt this under capitalism either.

Trite comebacks do not a debate make. Be specific.

Likewise, drop the whole American Indian angle. I agree that what the settlers did back then was wrong, but that was settlement of undeveloped lands. The American Indians did not establish a system of government as European nations did, and they did not regard the settlers as "immigrants." Likewise, the settlers were not incorporated into their tribal culture or society. Apples and oranges.

The White-eyes never planned to live among the aboriginal people. So there was no need to learn the languages. Even so, some of the White-eyes did learn the languages of the aboriginal tribes. The White-eyes were NOT immigrants. They were invaders and interlopers.

ruveyn

Something like the Anglo-Saxons who invaded and took over England about 1500 or so years ago.

People have been migrating and invading from one place to another ever since there have been people. Its not like this is anything new, or that some ideal society had recently been established and this ideal society was now being threatened by immigrants.

You just have to accept the fact that human societies constantly change and migrate.

Even the Japanese went to Japan from somewhere else, and probably conquered some aboriginal people who happened to live there previously.

Whether a nation accepts or doesn't accept immigrants of whatever persuasion, the nation has to accept the results of either accepting or not accepting the immigrants.

Well, no one is using physical force to make others work, but you have to admit that the money economy is pretty coercive in that it cuts off the individual from the natural economy (so we don't "choose" to work for someone else to secure food and shelter, we have to work for someone else to secure food and shelter, because from the minute you are born, any piece of ground that your feet touch is already owned by someone - privately or by the state).

It's not slavery but it could be seen as serfdom. A while ago I was learning about Capitalism on wiki and I bumped across this term "Human Capital". The term generally refers to the workforce (human resources, human beings), and human capital is one of the three factors of production.

And Capitalism is:
-- an economic system based on private ownership of capital
-- an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned. ...

Replace "capital" with "human capital" or even "human beings":

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of human capital...
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of human beings...

Say wHaT????

LoL I'm just playing Devil's Advocate

There are many things wrong with the capitalistic system. But chattel slavery is not one of them.

ruveyn