What is the argoument for letting mass immigration continue?

lurk more faggot

Totally agree on that. But you are ignoring the fact that when people come in they bring their culture too. So if in your culture gays should be thrown off roofs how can that go well in a country where we are trying to normalize gay marriage?

They shouldn't.

First, gay marriage is bourgeois liberal claptrap and no one should give a single shit about it. It's just a ploy to co-opt homosexual populations and integrate them more closely into the upper class mechanisms of control so that the revolutionary solidarity they shared with other oppressed groups in the 60s-80s is dissipated.

Second, if these people don't want to be around gays then maybe they shouldn't come to a country full of gay people, which they probably wouldn't need or want to if their own country weren't having the shit bombed out of it.

Third, the vast majority of those that do immigrate cause no problems whatever, and as recent history shows the main perpetrators of mass terror are natives of that country in the first place, which points to significant problems in the superstructure of that adoptive country rather than a simple conflict between liking gays and not liking gays.

Hi guy, for future reference 80% of the times someone mentions annudah Shoah and doesn't have a nazi flag they're fuckin around.

Hope you like it here, 70% of us are nice.

Gays where a poor example. What at about the oppression of women and sexual freedom? Not even talking about terrorism. It's wasn't the generic "all the muzzie are terrorist" "the want to kill whites" but I was more interested in how their conception of sexuality and hierarchy could live with ours

It can't. Remove.

Thanks mate, I fucking love here. There is actual discussion and Holla Forumstards don't even come near here. Seriously, on /his/ everyday there are at least 4 threads denying holocaust. Plus here no one calls me a tankie or a jew for having left political views.

twitter.com/britainelects/status/869515166769184768

I know that is totally retarded but is what Holla Forums belives. Just look at the replies under that tweet

Oh boy just you wait

Incompatible cultural attitudes should stay apart but individuals can hold views that oppose their culture's. Why this is happening right now with mass immigration is from the after effect of imperialism.

Price reduction and new places to eat

the vast majority of the migrants are going for welfare not trying to escape imperialism

Well it depends on what you mean by "live with," because just by living in proximity their views are going to change over time, and just because a group or individuals hold one view today that they can't or won't hold other views tomorrow. Tbh I live in an immigrant dense area and there are practically no problems as far as that goes, despite hosting people from all over the globe in a relatively small city. If anything, most crime and civil strife comes from the poor native black population than anyone else.

As leftists we should be acting in a spirit of solidarity, to welcome them and integrate them as much as possible, but taking unprovoked violent action against otherwise peaceful people shouldn't be tolerated in the least.

There isn't any difference.

The middle eastern conflicts were at least in part caused by imperialist policies. They wouldn't be let leaving and let in such mass if it werent for that.

"Something something racism islamphobia" on the surface, "Competition for jobs, lower wages, higher profits for porky" behind the scenes.

I have yet to see someone speak in favor of islam here, except for Holla Forums false-flaggers.

If there weren't so many gibs available, they wouldn't be going in the first place.

It happens from time to time.

The "argument," if you can call it that, is that given the economic incentives to migrate that people experience, they should be allowed to do so, rather than legally prohibited. Like, "it's in their best interests" (given current conditions) and "people in the West are better off than them" so "Westerners can afford to eat a small disadvantage to give a larger advantage to others, and thinking otherwise is selfish."
It really boils down to there currently being a trade-off between the rights and economic conditions of two groups, and wanting to alter that balance more to one direction or the other through bourgeois policy.

Here most of us want to eliminate that trade-off itself by abolishing the commodification of labor and private ownership of the means of production, securing to all the right to retain the full product of their labor wherever they live. Honestly, people who unironically want to live under sharia would prefer to associate with likeminded people in a country full of likeminded people, if not for the economic incentives that push them to move into "incompatible cultures."

This is true at the same time

I guess the operative word should be "want." Do people in Islam's mainstream/religious right really want to live in a culture they consider degenerate filth, or is it merely the best option they have available under current circumstances?
Overturn these economic incentives and people's preferences for which society/culture they want to live in will have much, much more to do with which cultures they like, and the type of people who do immigrate with different cultures will be far more likely to actually enrich the communities they join, because they're coming in from a place of mutual respect, admiration, and understanding. You already see this in action, too - the Muslim scientists, engineers and doctors who come to the US are orders of magnitude more "moderate" than the Muslims coming into Europe right now, because the comparatively smaller weighting of economic factors means they rely more on the "soft" factors like social environment and cultural compatibility in deciding where to live

Mass immigration sucks
And we need to ban all religion

this but unironically.

I wasnt ironic

They want gibs. Whoever provides the most gibs, that can reasonably be reached, is where they will go. Right now that is Sweden or Germany. If you keep offering gibs, eventually you will run out of money for gibs, and the native population will be very angry that their welfare was bankrupted to rescue Muslims who thank them with suicide bombings. Then you get full-blown fascism. It would be best to just only take refugees who gave gone through the proper UN refugee agency so as to stop attracting welfare migration.

Most people from Muslim countries I've known in the US are Muslims in name only and wanted to get the fuck out of Lebanon or Iran - I haven't actually met anyone from a majority-Sunni country yet.

...

Yeah, that is a part of what I mean by "economic incentives." But it's not the whole story - better wages, opportunities, and employment prospects also attract immigrants, and if you opened the borders completely after only removing immigrant gibs, then wages, opportunities, and employment prospects would still naturally equilibrate between origin and destination countries. The native population would still be angry about immigration shitting up the country. There's still a trade-off between the interests of native and immigrant workers as long as capitalism is a thing, and the only real policy response you have to native workers' concerns, under capitalist rule, is fighting for a restrictive immigration policy and hoping that it doesn't get rolled back in the next congress/administration.

The actual policy that gets implemented will on average tend to line up with bourgeois interests, and getting a few years with a policy modestly more restrictive than most porkies want doesn't do you a whole lot of good when the floodgates get opened next round, or in the long-term. It's a constant fight to preserve what gains you do make against porky's constant incentives for more cheap labor and more debt-free consumers, and if Trump's record so far is any indication, it's very much an uphill battle. The porkies want stability, and so do make concessions against their own interests like the welfare state, but it takes really rather minor concessions to avert mass social unrest and regain immense stability. You gotta abolish capitalism, dog.
we really do need more "socially right-wing" marxists tbh

God looks so cute.

the saudis don't arm isis you fucking retard. at least get your facts straight

Your borders, nationality, and race are a spook.

Obsessing over whether immigrants or anyone else wants "gibs" is Peak Spook

The idea that "Western culture" somehow protects gay rights by design ignores the fact that less than one century ago, Westerners mostly hated homosexuals and supported nasty anti-gay policies — sexual minorities had to conquer those rights through collective struggle. Social attitudes are not eternal attributes of immutable "civilizations" but the result of material conditions and political tensions. European eventually went through a process that made them more likely to be more tolerant and accepting. There is no reason to believe Muslim immigrants coming to Europe won't follow suit, that is unless specific social forces are working directly against it.

"They take our jobs, and lower our wages"
This argument is compatible with leftism

horseshit.
that's not what's causing mass displacement of people and you know it.
Surprisingly enough, people in these countries had stable lives with jobs and families before they got McBombed. You don't just up sticks and travel halfway across the globe to live on just enough to pay utilities and groceries when you have a stable life where you are. Having your country torn apart by civil strife and foreign invasion tends to be a stronger impetus to move than gibsmedats.

Mass immigration is bad for the workers class, socialists should never support it.

Simple, natural, immigration is fine, though.

...

Do you enjoy being being a bourgeois pawn?

You do realize there is no distinction between the two, right? Immigration doesn't become less "natural" as it grows in scale.

State as is, is not in any way required to provide for non-citizens.

What the fuck even is this.

TBH multicult ain't defensible. It's just a ploy to keep the proles reduntant through influx of cheap labor.

He means "natural" as in "uninfluenced by government policy, whether gibs or bombs," I assume.
Neoliberal policy very clearly has the objective of increasing immigration for that sweet, sweet cheap labor and undebted consumption
"Natural" immigration is like the immigration we'd see in a socialist world

endless growth is the basis of capitalism.

So is "this land is mine all mine you must be worthy to be on it"

they enrich your culture, Islam is the source of all scientific advancements, dumb kaffirs didn't know about algebra; oh and you need to convert or we're gonna tax you. Last thing you need to support Palestine, remember how the Jews always forced you to care about Israel? Well know Muslim shit is your primary concern. Just so you know Mohammed loves you less for not being an arab directly related to him. But Islam isn't racist or hegemonic imperialist. Saddam Hussein was a muslim and he was a socialist, he called himself a socialist and killed lots of people so i trust him (im a tankie lol i only trust people if they are well known politicians who were mass murderers and starved lots of people to death on purpose like Saddam or Stalin). Idk man i love Islam so much, Kaffir

Sandniggers couldn't even create algebra until the Indians created decimal numbers, though
Hegemon of world capital by 2020!

also great algebraists from Galois on have a strong tendency to be white

You're such a fucking fag.

I never did understand how nazis made a connection between a bunch of atheists who want to violently overthrow capital and jewish bankers. It is completely contradictory.

So the situation in sweden is not real is just dumb right wing propaganda?

I find the idea that a vast minority of foreigners coming to the continent of Europe, and for some reason overturning their whole culture and making everyone a conservative Muslim, unlikely.

I mean, isn't it obvious that most of them will fall into commercialism and a life perfectly in tact with capitalism within 2-3 generation, if not immediately. Just think of all those men, which came to Germany to work here, to send money back to their families in Africa - they aren't disrupting the base culture all all, that of a life of consumption, work and commercial goods.

That's not to say that it's good in some abstract progressive sense, but it's not the evil right-wingers make it out to be. Furthermore the anti-islam people, create the pro-islam movement, which also isn't any better.

they don't send their best of their brightest

Sandniggers are caucasoid.

but they're armenoids so it doesn't matter

Get gud.

I'm not Holla Forums

Caucasoids couldn't even figure out math until we created numbers. It's an Indian world, you're just living in it
Jai Hind

Immigration isn't just a result of Porky-sponsored deliberate policies, it is also a desire on the part of the immigrant to leave home and seek better prospects. As long as global inequality exists, so will mass immigration.

I think we can all agree on this. Where are these "porkies" who disagree?

Nope, they were planning that BEFORE even the Holocaust excuse:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_Must_Perish!
See also: Kalergi plan.

Are indians even considered non-caucasoids?

Yes they do, if not the state. The billionaires have a vested interest in funding ISIS, given that while there might not be a particular lot of oil around there, if they left things alone, their pipelines to Turkey (and Europe through there) would pass through Shia-controlled territory. What do I mean? Well, when the US overthrew Saddam and allowed elections, Iraq's Shia majority elected a Shia candidate. As a result, between Turkey (& Europe by extension), there was a solid line of Shia countries and therefore meant that Iran had the power to shut off the Saudi lifeline at any time. As a result, the monarchy ended up in a very sticky situation where they had to let the billionaires do as they pleased and fund ISIS or (their preferred choice) Al-Nusra, while also denying any involvement and not allowing state money to directly go to ISIS. It's convenient to place the blame on Qatar, as they, being a Salafi oil billionaire-controlled country as well, likely had a similar dynamic going.
I'm from Holla Forums btw, before you accuse me of being from Holla Forums.

Yes, see and

Wait no i meant not

...

interesting post user, can you recommend any reading on the subject?

Mass immigration is a two pronged assault on the working class.

It drives down the price of labor, keeping wages stagnant in an era of unprecedented worker productivity.
It creates a perfect fracture point among the working class, which keeps them fighting over it instead of things like class issues.

Amusingly, since the left encompasses it's most vocal supporters (though businesses and politicians on every part of the political spectrum support it quietly), any discontent it raises benefits the right, especially the more radical part (the more moderate right wing is broadly in support of mass immigration, but would just prefer to not talk about it)

it's some shit.

I bet most people in 1965 wouldn't think that the US would go from 90% white to 60% in 50 years because of the Hart–Celler Act, and yet here we are. Demographic replacement of a country of 200+ million people within a human lifetime is about to become precedented. Not that I think Europe will actually become halal, more likely it'll just collapse into unending civil strife from which it will take centuries to rebuild.

lol dude give all your money to the poor they need it more than you xd

Different user here. Leftypol is great as long as you can stand a couple of insults ;).

You get called a tankie on /his/ for being a leftist?
Is that like every time that Holla Forums uses the word "spook"?