What arguments does the left usually make in favor of immigration?

The whole point is from the Neo-liberals to destabalise the job market and have a class of low paid workers, and well paid managers, and then un-people they can jail.

For the idpol retards it is the destruction of national bonds and community.

Both need a bullet.

Now try it again with less spooks and more emphasis on the materialism.

Lmao liberals are not leftists
That's why I allow myself in you spooked fuck :^)
Yeah totally let's focus on that instead of the entire earth being destroyed by porky and his greedy profits

user was making fun of it you goof

All nations are cancer and must be killed, to be against-immigration is to be defending a nation, and that makes you a turd, may as well defend a cop while you're at it.

As are the arguments for the benefits of no immigration.
It's a non-issue in the bigger picture of the march of capital.

I love that the dude who made that picture didn't bother to find out what mixing the different colors would actually add up to.
Pic unrelated

I have no obligation to give a shit about the west, or you, or your feelings, or anything else that should be removed.

No one is going to find the Left very persuasive if we were to just ignore all issues which compose the problem in favor of a sweeping generalized claim about history.

That is literally not an argument, like nobody makes it. Even Nazis.

True enough. We must put greater emphasis on feminism.

I also think counter-revolutionaries should get some 'emphasis'

because that has worked thus far?

I don't recognize the existence of nations or borders. I find it funny how the tankies always try and make the argument that they are helping the refugees and their home nations by restricting their freedom. It's always the rich telling the poor that their poverty is good for them.

...

My point is exactly that IDpol has not worked and racial/gender analysis must be largely abandoned in favor of class analysis.
I don't think this is a very radical position to take here.

This typically happens through warfare, conflict and being conquered. In a lot of ways it was beneficial in the long term for the Britons to be conquered by the Romans, doesn't mean the Britons at the time should have welcomed invasion and the ensuing decades of domination and subjugation.
We can focus on more than one thing at once user. Immigration is clearly an important issue to a lot working class people and if you really want political traction you'll have to accept that.

I and a lot of people disagree with that. All of human history, and our very biology disagree with that.
This is a serious issue I have with Marxist ideology and other radical ideologies like it, they completely dispense with culture, history, identity and religiousity, and the need to preserve and protect our traditions. A society without its traditions can't stand.

Fair enough, that's your business. I do care though.

Do you have a fence around your house?

my bad i thought you meant that the left should focus more on feminism

Why let refugees in who believe in collective national identity then? Should be told to fuck off and be spooks somewhere else, no?

...

What is most ridiculous is the expectation that I should place their wellbeing over that of refugees, just because they happen to have the same color skin as me or were born in the same arbitrary region. If I had to choose between the life of a single random refugee and a dozen tankies, I'd probably pick the refugee just because there's a chance they might contribute positively to the world.

How does open border crap benefit the poor then?
you sound like a fucking lolbert lel

Nope. Actually "my" dwelling is owned by porky. If I could get away with it I'd gladly let homeless people sleep here.

Do you think gated communities for rich people are a thing the left should support?

We don't dispense with culture, history, identity and religiousity, we analyse how they came to be. We don't blindly defend any cultural phenomonon just because it's "ours" or whatever.

Oh shut the fuck up. If you knew any fucking homeless people, or ever lived with a serious drug addict, or someone with serious mental illness, the toll it takes on your life, you wouldn't talk such fucking liberal shit.

Like in: convince the majority we are right so we get elected to office?

I'm not that person but I am pretty mentally ill and do have drug addicted friends
I'd rather have user attempt to assist people (and they could assist as well) instead of reactionary screeching that fits under neoliberalism
youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

Why "let" them in what? My made up fairy tale la la land I couldn't give a quarter rats ass about? Why let these monstrosity known as the nation state even exist? Why defend it?

The benefit is obviously that they get paid more than they do in their home countries.
More importantly, immigration is a symptom of capitalism. It is wholly driven by artificial inequality.
What's funny is that everyone seems far more concerned with immigration than with the multinational corporations who exploit cheap labor in other countries. If you eliminate that, I might actually agree that immigration would no longer benefit the poor because their countries would be economically independent. As it is, third world countries provide cheap labor for porky while keeping the human cost of that out of sight.

Tankies get a bullet too.

...

Good strawman. You literally responded to a problem by stating "It's a non-issue in the bigger picture of the march of capital." How do you think that'll go over? Imagine saying that IRL:
You just come across like a moron. You should engage with the actually existing problems of the people in a way that it makes it clear you have a sensible solution. The choice isn't between IDPOL and being a fucking retard who can't comprehend politics beyond the development of history on a macro scale.

Immigration is a material reality. These people actually exist and have an effect on wages, on the conditions in the country where they come from, on the sustainability of what remains of SocDem reforms and a load of other crap. Having a real opinion on this development is not IDPOL, it's just not being a fucking retard.

What does "spooks" mean?

People value family members over friends, friends over acquaintances, acquaintances over strangers, strangers over foreigners, foreigners over animals, animals over aliens and so on. This is normal.

lel ok, under your conditions it would have to be complete strangers, whoever decides they want to come in, and you have no capacity to make them leave or enforce any rules on them. Hopefully one day you can afford a house and can live in your utopia.
Other people want fences around their homes. They want security and to know the people who live near them so they can trust them and feel safe. This is the natural behaviour of all social creatures, not just humans. Even chimpanzees have tribes, and little enclaves and groups within the tribes. It is deeply fundamental to our biology and you can't just erase it.
What do you mean by the left? Why do you ask me that specifically?

Convince the majority that you don't want to destroy their traditions, erase their history and rip them from their roots and they won't fear your ideology so much. What I see in this thread is a bunch of people telling me to dispense of a lot of things that are deeply important to me because they are irrelevant, according to their ideology. It's a big put-off.

Then you aren't like most humans.

Eliminate that and hundreds of millions of people would quickly starve to death.

I've assisted family and friends, it's a nightmare, they make you hate them, in some cases it borders on abuse the level of shit they put people through. When the penny drops and they actually try to take themselves out of the delusion, then it's worth it.

For a fucking homeless person you don't? Give me a break, it's is a detriment to your own mental health. The guy saying he'd let them in if he could doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. The level of anger addicted or mentally ill people can bring you too can ruin your life, they change you.

Why the fuck are you here?

...

Why let spooked people into a nation state that you are trying to despook. Your made up scenario is a waste of time, we are talking taking first steps.

Your I hate you nation state teenage fit is about as useful a tactic as shitting in your hand and smearing it on yourself.

Do rightwingers have any arguments outside of spooky tribalism is good bullshit? Its like you people missed the whole point of civilization.

Yes, the spooky tribalism doesn't take away from immigration being shit for them, you have to actually deal with the problem not say 'omg spooked, everyone gets raped in every country, get over it'

Your teenage drive to cocksuck every authority you come across is unhelpful.

Which authority, name one.

They literally are paint though. If two cultures mix, they merge into a homogenous one with characteristics of both 'parents'. It results then in fewer distinct cultures in the world.
Theres not really a great need to preserve cultural diversity(or to encourage mixing), spooks and all that, but its completely lying to yourself to suggest mixing of cultures doesnt decrease cultural diversity overall.

Every argument you make is an argument for some kind of localism, not nationalism. The idea of 'national culture' or 'national identity' are fabricated. They're non-fucking-existant. People who live nearer to each other are more similar to each other, the 'national' lines drawn around that are meaningless.
If you wanna say people will trust and want to live around people more like them, sure. Thatd be the people in ones town and nearby towns first. Less and less so as the other person in consideration gets farther and farther away. They dont need some contrivance of a 'nation' to have this or act according to it.
oh. no, yeah, nah, fuck off m8.

pls stop

You also miss the point about civilisation, it came from social cohesion not diversity, trying to claim that as a pro immigration argument is retarded and won't work on non liberals.

You keep saying let. I think the better thing to say would be "not arbitrarily restrict them from entering something that has no justification to exist."
Stop obsessing over your fucking made up fairy tale land, I don't care, the people in question do not care so much about your feelings of purity to live in suffering for you.

The disaster that must be destroyed known as the nation state.

There are arguments against "imigration" outside of shit tier tribalism. I have yet to see them in this thread though.

Read a Book man

Oh for Gods sake

It came from sedentary farming and division of labor you faggot

Your retarded thread started by equating refugees and imigration in general with mixing culture combined with a spooked understanding of nationstates. Dont expect to be taken seriously.

Farming is a society of tribes you complete retard, you don't get division of labour in people who are afraid of each other. All cows can be traced back to a tiny group of people who started domesticating, they weren't bloody diverse, they were on their own and spreading in various directions.

Not my thread asshole.

I thought it was obvious OP is a Holla Forumstard asking us what we think of immigration because he first thought we were liberals.

ban males, even children and problem solved. Let the waifus come.

That would be reverse colonialism or some shit I'm sure.

This is like asking "heh, do you OWN things?" when someone is against private property.

To hone my arguments and learn different shit

How do you figure this? English culture is distinct from French, the people have their own characteristics, their history, traditions and language are clearly distinct from one another. There are many similarities, and you don't have to go far back to find large movements of people from one region to the other, but England and its culture and national identity are clearly separable from French culture and national identity. Seems to me the same can be said of practically any nation going back a long ways, even as European states arose and dissolved over the centuries there are clearly distinct ethnic groups and cultures still there, and represented by a nation. In some sense they can be arbitrary, but they are certainly not entirely arbitrary.
They do when it comes to war. Feuding Gallic tribes attempted to unite into a single coalition as the Romans slowly destroyed them and took their territories. As did the Britons, and as did the Native Americans.
I didn't say that. I did say if you instantly erased Apple and all its factories a bunch of Chinese peasants would find themselves out of work and would starve to death.

multinational corporations are a threath to worldwide cultural diversity.
Americanization/consumerist culture that it brings is even more destructive then "refugee welcome" fags

Nigga what

Girls will lead to FALGSC

lol

Your suggestion that the particular distinctions of 'english' and 'french' are meaningful is complete horse shit.
Yeah, the culture of any place in 'england' is historically different from that of any place in 'france'. And yorkshire culture is different from cornish culture. Is different from essex culture. There is literally no reason to draw the line around 'england'. You drift smoothly up into scotland as you go north. Its meaningless. This is actually massively more true in france, since its not an island.
fucking christ I really hope you're not trying to suggest "native americans" were one big culture.
Various coalitions of people in the same regions forming in response to a shared threat does not constitute a nation or a justification for nationalism.

What if both are bad?

These retards always fail to realize the biggest attack (not even "threat", as it's been doing this already for decades) to their spooky ideas is capitalism itself.

Immigration and borderlessness can only come AFTER capitalism has been deposed fully, it's a result, not a prescription for something. And that means the pull and push factors are lessened globally and Communism can be allowed to flourish.
Before that happens allowing mass immigration is just pissing on a candle. It will produce a reaction that Capitalism will adapt to.

Unregulated immigration is bad, regulated immigration is decent enough under capitalism.

Frog here, the french culture as homogenic entity is largely the creation French state, initiated by the absolute monarchy then by the French republic, especially of Jules Ferry's public schools and Ernest Lavisse's work.
Beofre that it was a bunch of smaller feudal kingdoms going at each other throat, that didn't even share the same language.

...

I disagree.
There is a clear distinction between a Glaswegian and a Londoner and the culture of the peoples. That distinction becomes less and less distinct the closer to the center of the two regions you get, I get that it's somewhat arbitrary to place a line somewhere in that area, at some point it's necessary. Otherwise where do you end up? Should there be no borders between Norway and South Africa? China and France? Are you saying that although there is a gulf in difference between the Chinese and the French, any line drawn between them is arbitrary, so there should be no line at all? That is not tenable.

All the tribes were unique, but on a macro level they were pretty similar. And if that coalition of tribes had prevailed they presumably would have remained in one big nation state as protection against future invasions.
Absolutely it does, nationalism is necessary protection against invasion.

Do you think tribes are arbitrary? Families even?
If not I don't get why it suddenly becomes arbitrary when it's "national."

Look back far enough anywhere and that's the case. We all started out as tiny tribes.

lol

I would be more sympathetic to that view if everyone who held it didn't get extremely upset when collective identities and associated blood sins they favor are derided, internally coherent their views are not.
I mean every single person on the left i've gotten near who've argued that about collective identites also thought it was funny to half-mockingly go on about 'kill whities' (i.e. goon types) yet get frothingly mad when people don't accept notions of collective racial guilt over black slavery (which apparently don't include the arab slave trade or stop at the nations who actually were involved in it), holocaust et al. The kind of guy who'll spend hours obsessing (and obnoxiously spamming it over chat) over how stupid pride in a nation or ethnic group is is but will adamanly hold that the japanese have't flagellated themselves enough over Nanking/Unit 731/comfort women and must accept mass-immigration because of it.

not an argument

Why would you try to find arguments for something that is so clearly not in your interest or that of the people?

It fucks over both the third world and the first world workers, only benefiting the employers in the first world and a small handfull of migrants.

Yeah. not drawing arbitrary lines on such criterea wasn't"untennable" for literally all of human history before nationalism, when lines were drawn exclusively by thuggery with zero regard for similarity or kinship. "No line" doesnt mean everyone mixes with everyone. Your arguments about tribalism support localism, not nationalism, again. If tribalism is natural, nationalism is an artificial imposition on it. Its proven by science that we have a very fixed, finite number of people we can actually have in our 'tribe', somewhere under 300 I think it was. Not a "nation."
oh holy shit you really are a dumb fuck aren't you.
Yeah, no. Not even a little bit. Its a fucking continent you retard, they didnt even look the same either end of it.

immigrants are workers and workers should show solidarity to eachother

Greentexting and posting retarded memes aren't an argument either.

Especially when it's always the uneducated ones or the ones that come from shitholes being fucking bombed that always get all the hate.

None of these rapefugees have a job. They are pure lumpen.

Except that immigrants don't see themselves as working class, but often see the other workers as "the others".

All workers ought to overthrow the bourgoiesie but thats not happening, so you can leave your idealised world at the door and take a look at whats actually happening.

but it's true. controlled immigration leads to the educated moving to the west instead of improving the place they came from.

i'm convinced 70% of the posts here are Holla Forumscucks in disguise

Well if thats so then I am in the 30%.

Maybe you should realise that not everyone you disagree with is pol/JIDF/brocialists/[insert boogeyman enemy here]

This. The whole thread seems like Holla Forums is trying to exploit psychological groupthink.

Yes lots have jobs.

You're overestimating the intelligence of Holla Forums

Mate, are you seriously telling me that this is your actual, real opinion?
>Lol the immigrants should just have solidarity even though they don't, if they did we wouldnt have a problem

And so what if they're lumpen or whatever you deem undesirable?
Immigrants are workers but ones that prokies will still want to exploit the proletariat's labor

IT MEANS THEY WONT HELP THE REVOLUTION. THE IMPORTATION OF GROUPS OF PROLES WHO WILL SUCK UP TO THE BOURGOIESIE IS ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO BREAK THE POWER OF THE PROLETARIAT. THEY ARE LONG TERM STRIKEBREAKERS. THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE THE 1800'S! READ SOME FUCKING HISTORY.

Retards think refugees won't be counter revolutionary, they will. Problems now, problems later.

THEN BUFF UP ON CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS INSTEAD OF WHINING
OR JUST BE A LEFTCOM AND DO NOTHING AT ALL
WHATEVER WORKS
IT IS THE CAPITALIST'S FAULT TO BEGIN WITH SINCE THEY IMPORT LABOR AND NEW DEBT
THEY ARE LONG TERM STRIKEBREAKERS BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE CAPITALISTS DO.

It's natural in the same way that tribalism is, it works, and those that don't get on board get exterminated or subjugated and assimilated.

Are we just talking North America? I'm not American and haven't studied this but they've always looked and sounded pretty similar to me.
I guess it's like sub-Saharan Africa, very diverse ethnically and culturally but from my perspective it all blurs into one similar blob, because I've never studied it.

Either way, these Native American tribes were similar enough to recognise an invader to "their" way of life, encroaching onto "their" lands, and were able to communicate with each other, and then unite under one banner against a mutual enemy. So they were more similar to each other than they were the Europeans.

You're retarded if you think everyone and their mother won't be counter revolutionary.

i'll soon be an immigant, it's nice to know that the "left" want's me dead
lot's of immigrants i know are class conscious
nobody claimed that
immigration is an issue created by capitalism, however "they should stay put and die" will not happen

so if those damn foreigners didn't exist we'd already have socialism?
bullshit

How exactly?

By "controlled" I mean the government making sure the immigrants can get accustomed to the country they're moving to, not that they reject the uneducated ones and only accept the useful slaves.

I don't give a fuck about immigration, the only thing that bothers me is when immigrants in Europe commit a crime and they're let free because "lol it's their culture" or whatever.

I mean for fucks sake. The right wing parties in western europe purposefully keep them in ghettos so they won't intergrate, which causes a fractured working class, low income and a large reserve army of labour. Its not like the socialists parties warned us about this in the 70's. Noooo…

Oh yes. I just need to git gud, instead of making shit easier for everyone we just need to git gud and crank up the impossible challange to 2000% by importing masses of strike breakers and fracturing the working class, making them support ethno-centric parties like we have in the dutch elections. Where all alienated working class voted far right anti-islam and all the alienated turkish working class voted for a erdogan backed turkish ethic party.
Yes, that should work. Great idea, why the fuck didnt I think of that man? The fact that capitalists do shit and fuck over the lives of everyone means I have to encourage it because capitalism? Totally logical! I shouldn't oppose the exploitation of the working class because that is what capitalism does anyway. Thanks mr armchair.

Ye man, Im sure all the turkish and marrocan migrants are all about to fucking die in their own country and thats why they immigrated here.

None of the ones I know are. And I know a fuckton.

I swear to god it is another Holla Forumsyp or the same whiny baby in this thread.
I do not want you dead for you're a fellow worker as well.
Porky divides and conquers.

Hello where are da proofs ::D::::DDDDDD
Wrong you dumbfuck, porky still gonna pork and want to keep exploiting people
user never implied any of that

Is this porky posting himself?
Autistic neo nazis larping are working class but there are bourg ones as well through funding of anticommunist regimes (I would have no doubt)

Firstly, to disabuse people of any fears of the revolution being worse than the present, capitalism must be dismantled in the current state the Western States are in, and simultaneously in third world and Arab states falling as a result.

Large amounts of Muslim immigrants isolated from this, as they will be, will be a massive problem.

When and only when Capitalism is replaced, borders and Communism will be the result, you don't start the open borders before the fucking horse is ready to leave the stable, that is the result of it.

And it isn't a moral or virtous thing people should be aspiring to, like liberals do, it's simply not a problem in a post capitalist society and the anxieties will be less.
However in a flux state in between immigration control is vital as the revolution is at it's most vulnerable, you don't just let ideology run the show and defeat everything for Porky to destroy your revolution.

Immigration is a capitalist problem. The vast majority of migrants do so reluctantly for economic reasons or due to war. These economic problems and wars are directly caused by capitalist countries wnd organisations like the US, EU and the IMF.
For some reason right wingers think most immigrants do it because where da white wimmins at
Not much theory to back that up.

Yes he fucking did
You can't convince me that people actively advocating for making achieving the revolution harder by fracturing the working class are the ones somehow more "communist" than me, and me saying we shouldnt have economic migration because it breaks the working class and fucks over third world countries somehow makes me porky?

Where did I say that
And I am against immigration until the material conditions are improved like said
First and foremost the government woudl have to stop bombing other countries and installing coups via the CIA or whatever it may be. War is included

also
That would be acceleration to nazi central.

Anyway Im out, all of you can jack each other off about how you are all proletarians without country and how youre all ideologically so pure.

Stay gone retard

this is supposed to be a bad thing?

stopped reading there. You can have sensible imigration policies but trying to outrightwing the rightwing is retarded

Haha. No. No mercy for the cowards and "women and children".

whatcha doin paul

Fuck rapefugees

Read a fucking book

The left would be twice as popular if it wasn't for its stance on immigration. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. Besides amy socialist should want a world where there is no need immigration.

You know? I used to believe in all these sob stories.
But then I realized. There are people fighting out there, and their stories are exactly the same.
Exploited, tortured, terrorized, raped, subjected to genocide and institutionalized oppression. Losing friends and family.

And you know what those people did? They didn't flee. They're fighting. Today.
They're the whole reason we're even talking about a revolution in Rojava today.

There is little place for an able-bodied middle-eastern or African male in Europe today, unless they're (medical) tourists or specialists/artists/academics on an assignment. Especially not from an ecological point of view.
The only genuine refugees are those that reasonably cannot be expected to fight and might even be a burden to the war effort: Children, women and widows with young children, the disabled and the elderly.

...

...

I wonder if she's gonna run when we come to collectivize her.

Christ, you want to keep your head low when it's middle of the back rows turn to get assigned as revolutionary wife.

This thread is full of spooks.

Private property could not exist without the state to enforce it. It is a modern legal fiction.

...

Keep in mind average discourse is retarded, so

This is insane. There are nations and borders, whether or not they're social constructs. You benefit from strict borders, and most poor people in your nation do. Arguably, most poor people throughout the world do. Stop being porkie's pig boy.

It comes down to two groups of people here. People who care about their own national identity and care whether immigrants saturate the job market for low income jobs because Porky exploits them and people who don't care about national identity and recognize they will be exploited by Porky where they come from regardless, so if they're trying to escape violence or political persecution or whatever else, then why not let them into another country.

Personally, I think people exaggerate how many jobs are given to exploited immigrants over natural born citizens and it isn't hard to look elsewhere. Also setting your sights on immigrants and refugees rather than porky himself is exactly what he wants.

And the crime meme is dumb as shit,

Meme? Did you see the statistics quote in the OP?

Only if you're an idiot.

is there a source for that quote

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime

There is no source. The rape parades comes straight out of Holla Forums

see

Can I get a source that isn't wikipedia, so I can judge the legitimacy? I don't know which specific citation that part of the article comes from.

helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/152441/265_Lehti_ym_2014.pdf

There's a summary in English at the end.

Rojava doesn't have enough food resources to keep all the IDPs in Syria fed and able to fight or build up society.

Aren't there also studies about how immigration reduces crime? I know for a fact I saw one that said immigrant communities in America have less crime than "American" communities

"Taking other factors into consideration is important, according to Lehti. Issues such as quality of living conditions, family life and socio-economic status all play a role in a person's likelihood of criminality, he told the paper.

The most common denominator in people who commit crimes is unemployment, Lehti said.

"Criminal statistics go hand in hand with unemployment statistics. That goes for the newly-arrived as well as native Finns," he said."

yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/wednesdays_papers_rape_statistics_and_migrant_violence_debate/8496423

Native Finns are employed more often than immigrants. Also, that still doesn't prove the rape parade myth that y'all love to tout about those Scandinavian countries.

Yes that's probably true in America, since the native crime rate is so high there.

Again, look at the statistics in the OP.

To say states do not exist is to use a stupid criterion for existence. You are surrounded by the effects of nation states. That a state is not, at any point, a concrete thing, and is an elaborate constitution of ritual and social construction, does not make it unimportant or nonexistent.

You gave me an article that lumped all violent crimes together, buddy-boy, at least the English abstract did.

The argument goes that the workers of the world have no country, and the left advocates for the complete dissolution of the state, so anything less than complete freedom of movement is basically nationalist and we must reject it in solidarity with third-world comrades so that they can earn a better living in rich countries and be free from imperialist violence.

I think you are under the impression that we are democrats. We're not.

Either way, wouldn't you need the backing of a large portion of the population to have a successful revolution?

A revolution will happen, a Fascist one if this shit is kept up.

Migrants should have the same rights as citizens so porky cant use their illegal status as leverage to exploit them

They'll have great rights when they are being rounded up after that level of retardation drives people insane and they just want blood.

Try to reply to me again but with less autism pls

1. No, what we need from the majority is a positive neutrality at most.
2. One doesn't gain support of the majority through political dispute. Material conditions will get some people to reject bourgeois ideologies and then these people can learn theory and become active revolutionaries.
3. What you propose is the exact opposite of "converting" people to our ideas: it's renouncing our ideas and adopt the bourgeoisie's. It's being active conservatives rather than revolutionaries.

B-But PJW told me conservatives are the new revolutionaries!

Try living in the real world where a billion people moving in a few years because they get status for social welfare, isn't the beginning of Fascism and the death of Communism as a reality.

Thats not the reason why most people move.

You sound pretty autistic, are you sure you understood my original post?

Do you seriously think that's why muslims are moving to Europe? I mean, in the end the whole immigration debate is because of muslims so don't even try to bring up mexicans or whatever up now.

...

It's the reason most people don't move ffs, if you give them status just for turning up, that is the end of the left. It's the most wrongheaded idea at the worst possible time.

Most people come for when the stampede will happen. And it hasn't even started.

...

You retard, why would anyone move when they cannot exploit their illegal status, why would anyone hire a migrant when both him and a native worker can demand the same pay?

You aren't trying to start a revolution in Somalia. It's the developed world that revolution can only work.

Holy fuck, do you know how much is paid out to refugee and asylum seekers in Europe? If they get status they will be entitled to social welfare, just for turning up, that is the end of the Welfare State. Not in the good way, in the it's time for Facism now way

You wish! Communism is the unwanted child of capitalism; it will exist as long as it hasn't come to its conclusion: the death… of capitalism!

Proofs?

Point out where in my post did I suggested socdem welfare should be encouraged
I didnt you fucking idiot, migrants should have equal rights, not equal benefits

Please people.

Er, every revolution in a country without production, is just Nationalism. They then need a State to enforce plans of development.

In Europe rights come with benefits, if you have the right to stay the state must provide you with housing, and healthcare. Are you some kind of fucking dipshit?

You fucking idiot, why should I care what europe socdems do, I simply stated what should be done to stop economic migration

I never said anything about europe

Look. I know living in a fantasy is what you are used to, we are talking about your fucking fantasy in the current set up, and it is balls out retarded, and going to bring Nationalism crashing in. Nothing you stated would stop economic migration. It would just make a mess, which people will look to the old ways to clean up.

Citation needed

No proofs?

If standards of living are noticeably better in one country than another, people will try to migrate to the better region if no immigration rules are enforced.

The one living in a fantasyland is you.

Remove the economic and political exploitation forcing them out of their countries in the first place and watch as economic immigration fucking disappears.

Or you can keep squabbling over the crumbs porky brushes your way, like a fucking moron.

Reiterating your unfounded beliefs isn't a citation you invertebrate.

And they will starve to death because no one will hire them, as they can demand equal pay and hiring migrants over natives is a burden

Jesus man, it's about capitalism, not peasant economies, if the centre of Capitalism survives, there is no revolution, it simply cannot work.

Population is forcing them out, the political upheavel only intensifies with this, it's not stopping, and they are not staying. They are living in famine trends.

Starving immigrants, what are you fucking smoking, they are entitled already to be housed and fed.

See >>1482846

I know more about the asylum and imigration problems here than you I think, there are loads of problems but trying to outwail rightwingers is stupid. What we need is a coherent foreign policy, propper imigration law focused on integration, a propper information policy and way better handling of refugees. Seriously you buying into right wing myths because you dont want to appear liberal is stupid and you should stop that.

It's like you're really just a massive retard that can't think at all for himself and just spouts out shit that he hears. Do you have a single thought in your head that hasn't been shat into it by someone that profits from your exploitation? Pro tip: examine the root causes of these symptoms rather than simply responding with the reactionary rhetoric you've been fed and maybe someday you'll stumble upon the path to unfucking yourself.

There's no reason for these people to need to move or leave. We know that we have resources aplenty, more than enough for everyone in the world several times over, so why are they suffering from "overpopulation" and "famine," especially when many of them are emigrating from some of the most agriculturally rich regions on the fucking planet. Come on, really rev that cogitator user, I know you can manage to figure even this little puzzle out.

Yeah, no shit, that was needed three years ago. There is no right wing lies about the current situation, it was a cock up from start to finnish, there is no defending it on any grounds, economic, humanitarian, or the welfare of refugees. It's one of the most mind bendingly stupid set of events to occur in Europe in 70 years. It made no sense, and gave rise to Europe wide cynicism that fueled populist revolts from East to West, and destroyed the credibility of institutions, most notably the media.

You can defend it by saying that bringing in a bunch of refugees and putting them on welfare improves their lives relative to getting bombed in Iraq, so it is the responsibility of Europeans in rich countries to take on the burden for the good of Iraqis.

I'm not defending this argument, but it's logically consistent.

Where is the policy to transfer massive amounts of wealth to Arab nations in population explosions, to African nations that are currently in famine or danger of famine? That is only the most urgent, the rest are economic, not necessity cases.

It's never going to happen, they want them here, it is a clear neo-liberal strategy. This is what is going to happen. For this NOT to happen, you need an actual revolution, that during transition borders are maintained, and capitalism needs to be allowed wither. When that happens in Europe and White nations, it will follow as the economy transforms exploitation is halted.

None of that happens if you trash your own revolution on day one with Liberal garbage.

A lot of the gulf Arab states are welfare petrostates. The main thing that Arab states need for the wars to end and for radical Islam to be crushed.

The right wing caused this bullshit and is most opposed to having a propper imigration law. Its a giant right wing myth that somehow CDU fucking up is the fault of the left. The left that then proceeded the save the fucking state from collapse. The left that actually tries to integrate and educate instead of charging refugees for german curses.

The right that ignored the warning signs for years and knew exactly what was going to happen if they would have only listened to their own intelligence services then proceeded to defend the terrorists that came as a reaction to their own failures and blaiming it on the left.

More like ignoring them and trusting that fucking Greece and East Europe would deal with the problem till they where literally on the doorsteps.

More like fucking up the process so much that loads of rejected asylum seekers dont get deported, that assimilated people get deported instead, that people have to wait for ages till they get a status and maybe then are allowed to work. Our "welfare" system somehow manages to bully everyone perfectly into getting "jobs" but doing the rational thing and creating a infrastructure to force education and bring people into aprenticeships fast doesnt work.

Its an epic list of fuck ups and willful blindness that cant be sumarized in "imigration is evil man"

Also this wasnt some evil cooked up plan, now that it has happend they are embracing it but before the governments just closed their eyes and tried to ignore everything as hard as possible.

The main thing they need is socialism.

Also this, endlessly trying to restructure capitalist states to do the better thing is just reformism and not of any value.

Forced immigration of a mostly violent, backward, third world, hyper-religious people into an area of a mostly non-violent, progressive, first world, secular people is a scheme by the ruling class to keep everyone divided.

In a place where mass rape on new years eve in censored out of the press, suppressed by the government, and was said by liberals to be crazy right wing hoax, revolution will never take place.

Apolitical people and moderates who are not racist see this happening and say "gee that's not good".
Liberals scream that they're racist and push these people into the right.
Actual right wing people can use the mass rape and violence as the first legitimate excuse they've ever had for their real racism.
The liberal media cries and bellows that nothing is happening and that everyone is a victim from the evil right wing, which is now partly made of normal people who just don't want to be raped on their way home form work.
Idpol Socialists continue to do everything they can to displace white people because they are white, and exacerbate the situation. Unknowingly, they are actually making an actual crazy right wing hoax come true, that the "anuddah shoah" they've been foaming at the mouth about since the 70s is actually a real thing.
Idpol Anarchists, being against boarders and thinking everyone in the world is as good of a person as they are, cut down fences letting more refugees in, who then turn around vote against the interests of the anarchists in every elections because they all have right wing conservative viewpoints.

Somewhere, porky laughs: "How convenient for me."

Wasn't this, a year or so later, proven to be a hoax though?

t. Anarcho-fascist

no a huge number of us are: anti-feminism (all feminism, not even first wave), anti-welfare (most of us hate welfare), anti-gibmedat (redundant), anti-oppression olympics (in the FAQ), anti Borders (some of us), anti-globalism (most of us), and then we do actually have a number of nationalists. We're not at all united on most of these issues. Just like most Holla Forumsyps aren't united on issues of religion and economics (Catholicism vs Protestantism vs Paganism; Capitalism vs Not Socialism vs Tribalism vs Mercantilism)

The right and Liberals are totally singing from the same sheet, corporations love refugees, endless virtue signalling, notice how 'far' right is used to differentiate good girl Merkel from the rest. 'Bad' populism from good.

If standards of living are noticeably better in one country than another, people will try to migrate to the better region no matter the immigration rules, you know?

Not an argument in favour of immigration. Also this post is clearly about "brown" immigration, since you aren't citing stats about East Asians, who are less likely to commit crimes than the native population. Drop the dishonest facade.
I skimmed through the source and while it is true that especially brown immigrants commit crime disproportionally, they also are the victims of crime disproportionally. Second generation immigrants have similar or less criminality than the native population. Finland is also a bad example to draw conclusions from, as the migrant community is very young and quite small compared to Germany or France for example.
Morality is a spook.
Conflicting data. I'd post an article here that claims immigration is beneficial to the economy, even in the case of unskilled migration, but it has gone behind a paywall. Something being good for the bourgie economy is not that important anyway.

Actual arguments? Alleviation to the demographic crisis of ageing and falling population, liberal principle of treating people as individuals - and not preventing them from 'the pursuit of happiness' whatever that may mean. Neither of these are really leftist arguments though. Then again OP seems to believe that left = social/progressive liberals.

A leftist argument might be the forging of international relations between workers and workers' organisations - bringing people from spooked and class-unconscious areas to more advanced societies and environments might cause a rising class-consciousness in the source countries through the migrants' connections to them. This obviously isn't the reality, as the west is also broadly class-unconscious.

An-Nil finally said something that makes sense

No. I mean, everyone's been saying it was hoax since day one, save for the victims that called the cops and filed reports.

I don't understand what you mean. Local laws and elections that directly go against ideals of individual autonomy exist. I don't understand your post.

You seem to be apologizing for not supporting open borders.

There were only 5 actual rapes on the night in question, and three had nothing at all to do with the NYE celebrations.

Are you referring to the Cologne incident? Because calling that a 'mass rape' is pretty sensationalist. I remember reading that there were 3 rapes associated with that particular case, the 'mass' crimes were mugging and sexual abuse ie. groping. If you have a better/more up to date source please provide it.

...

Welfare and other capitalist redistribution programs only serve to pacify the working class. The point is for workers to own the means of production, so that there is no need for redistribution from wealthy porkies.

OK so, only the first world working class is real?

Fuck you and fuck your spooked bullshit

The working class from the first world benefits from the exploitation of developing countries and now you want to say "fuck you, I got mine"?

Disgusting.

Well obviously but it's more than necessary in a capitalist system, would you just have all out-of-work people, disabled people, old people etc. fucking starve to death?

I'm an egoist à la Stirner, so yes.

Virtually every issue people are so paranoid about in the migrant crisis is the result of European political incompetence: governments have put basically no effort into handling the event pragmatically aside from begging "gateway countries" to deal with the problem for them. Governments like that of Germany only want political brownie points and care for neither native citizens nor the immigrants when things are handled poorly or people choose to abuse the system, i.e. petty foreign criminals taking advantage of the chaos. Others simply cannot afford to cope with the crisis effectively.

As you can probably surmise, liberalism is the main reason it is impossible to discuss this issue in a practical manner (inthesetimes.com/article/18605), which makes disaster inevitable. Their extreme pessimism by default, usually rooted in narcissism and concern for personal reputation, leads them to assume what they consider to be the worst possible motivation behind any opinion different from their own, so in their view, the only acceptable position is one that provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever to whomever they despise, in this case racialists and nationalists. To compromise in any way that might be preferable to them means they are perpetuating racism and xenophobia, and we can't have, can we?

Ultimately, however, capitalism the root cause of any mass immigration. Violent imperialism (i.e. burgerland) and economic exploitation are why so many people want to leave their home countries, and when they do arrive, an easily disposable demographic of unskilled migrants meets a demand for unfairly cheap and politically powerless labor that native citizens simply cannot provide. Even ones that do not work will still be consuming commodities, which leads to obvious conflicts of interest. Refugees exist because the Western world makes them, and as you can probably tell, the individuals culpable for such wrongdoing aren't the ones paying the price. Rejection of immigration on "cultural" grounds is inadequate for explaining why there is a problem to begin with.

For the far left, though, the refugee question really is difficult to answer because both scenarios–acceptance or rejection–will lead to the further normalization and acceptance of capitalist exploitation, either through false promises of responsibility and human dignity, or a decided apathy toward the civil rights of people outside of the developed world.

The migrants tend to keep to their own self-segregated enclaves, and remain alienated from the society around them, which strips them of any political authority they might have. People hate change, but economic and political instability in their countries of origin leaves little choice. It is also not common for lumpens unwanted in their own nations to exploit well-meaning policies in the first world, because regular citizens have a lot more to lose from leaving their homes. Germany treats random people from stable North African nations the same as Syrians escaping from war.

For that matter, a refusal to treat crime seriously among asylum seekers is not somehow inherent to an asylum program.

liberals are fucking clueless retards about everything because they unironically believe that they are above criticism

for every single argument that any of us on this board could possibly make, short of a strictly marxist analysis, there is shamelessly self-unaware liberal babbling that is basically a straw man of that argument

if you are just going to assume we are said liberals, no matter what we say, or somehow consider their statements to be more meaningful than ours, then why even have a discussion? no matter what we are defending points that you just assume we are making