/lit/ - Literature

Why did you post this on /lit/? Where is the literature?

>start small business, help economy
>behave well, or get deported, unlike spoiled white kids
>people deserve a chance at life in the west
>help compensate for declining birth rate
>if they're critical of king mujallah they're probably okay peeps

idk OP i kind of agree with you and see where you're coming from tho I thought Id play devils advocate

read Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood Speech I'm sure you will like it.

>>4782274
>people deserve a chance at life in the west

People deserve a chance at improving life in their own shitty region.

>>4782253
I agree with everything you said.

What's funny is the same people who wish to force mass immigration on western countries accuse those who do not want mass immigration of being fascists.

>>4782253
>If an immigrant is a decent, hardworking person then it sucks for the country he left.
Remittances actually make up a large chunk of some countries’ economies which can be a huge benefit when the country of origin has high unemployment for example. Also there is the fact that when people eventually go home, as they often do, they often bring back expertise, education and new ideas.

>drain on the existing population
Not necessarily, it’s more complicated than you’re implying. Look up the Lump of Labour Fallacy for example.

But ultimately the number one beneficiary of migration to the ‘West’ is the migrants themselves. I struggle to say that denying people a chance at a better life is some kind of kindness we’re doing them.

>>4782454
>Remittances actually make up a large chunk of some countries’ economies which can be a huge benefit when the country of origin has high unemployment for example.

You're ok with leeching money from countries?

>the number one beneficiary of migration to the ‘West’ is the migrants themselves

So the benefits of the few outweigh the benefits of their original countries?

>>4782461
>You're ok with leeching money from countries?
Look up the Lump of Labour Fallacy. When you add another worker to a country you don't necessarily remove jobs, you can actually create jobs in some cases.

But on the whole yes if it was a mild negative and a major positive to the individual concerned or their country of origin sure I'd be okay with a certain amount of money draining from a country. We already do that through foreign aid anyway.

>So the benefits of the few outweigh the benefits of their original countries?
I didn't say that they were the only beneficiaries. I suspect overall that most people win when it comes to immigration, but it's complicated.

>>4782466
>Look up the Lump of Labour Fallacy.

What? I'm not talking about jobs, I'm talking about money.

You're saying you're ok with people earning money in a certain country and then transferring that money to another country.

>I suspect overall that most people win when it comes to immigration

Except the majority of those who stay in the countries of origin.

>>4782253
> What are some actual arguments FOR immigration?
Ethical ones? All anti-protectionism ones?

>>4782476
>Ethical ones?

It's ethical to allow the young and enterprising to drain away from poor countries?

>All anti-protectionism ones?

Is protectionism a bad word or something?

>>4782470
>What? I'm not talking about jobs, I'm talking about money.
They are kind of the same thing. If you add a job to an economy you make the economy bigger which makes more money.

This bit is super fucking important and hardly anbody gets it: the size of an economy and the amount of work that is available for people to do is ELASTIC, it can go up and down.

>Except the majority of those who stay in the countries of origin.
See my comments above. Not necessarily, do you think that the United States would be the economic juggernaut it is today without immigration?

>>4782481
>They are kind of the same thing.

No they aren't.
Money is a quantifiable entity. The more you have of it the better. The same is not true for labor/amount of work.

>the size of an economy and the amount of work that is available for people to do is ELASTIC

Again, I'm not talking about amount of work.

>See my comments above. Not necessarily, do you think that the United States would be the economic juggernaut it is today without immigration?

The United States were colonized not long ago. Europe for instance has always been one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

So the arguments in favor are "look up these sociology propaganda pieces and feel badly"?

>>4782480
> It's ethical to allow the young and enterprising to drain away from poor countries?
It's ethical to allow people to make their own choices of their inhabitant rather than force them to stay where they were born because of macroeconomics.
> Is protectionism a bad word or something?
In a world where freedom of trade is a key issue, generally said, yes.

>>4782486
>It's ethical to allow people to make their own choices of their inhabitant rather than force them to stay where they were born because of macroeconomics.
>In a world where freedom of trade is a key issue, generally said, yes.

So immigration should be limitless?

>>4782488
> Money is a quantifiable entity. The more you have of it the better. The same is not true for labor/amount of work.
What? Are you saying that Labor =/= Money or that Labor is not a quantifiable resource?

>>4782492
Yes if you support laisséz faire economics. That is already the case inside EU.

>>4782494
I'm saying taking money generated within a country out of that country is not good for that country.

>>4782497
>Yes

Really?

>>4782500
And in that you make a statement that what is important is country and not the people.

>>4782501
Yes. Restricted immigration is just another form of protectionism, aimed in protecting a privileged labor force from foreign competition.

>>4782488
>Again, I'm not talking about amount of work.
Okay, well you should be. The point I'm making is that if you add jobs then potentially everyone gets richer: the migrant, the destination country, even the country of origin.

There is not a cap on the amount of money in the world, there is a cap on the efficieny of labour utilisation.

If you refuse to accept that there is a connection between making more jobs and making an economy larger then we can't have this conversation.

>The United States were colonized not long ago. Europe for instance has always been one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
The continued drip drip drip of immigration to the United States has only made it more and more powerful as an economy. The UK will eventually be the largest economy in Europe if current trends continue, and guess what? That's mostly down to immigration. Weird.

>>4782506
>Yes. Restricted immigration is just another form of protectionism, aimed in protecting a privileged labor force from foreign competition.
For the record I'm the guy who's been replying to the (presumed) OP, and I don't think unrestricted immigration is a particularly good idea.

>>4782518
Yeah there is me talking about protectionism and whatnot and you talking about work etc.

>>4782497
Are you saying the EU doesn't do protectionism?

Also, do you not care about cultures and ethnicities?

>>4782502
>And in that you make a statement that what is important is country and not the people.

Countries are the people.

>>4782506
>Restricted immigration is just another form of protectionism

So to you protectionism is a bad word?

>aimed in protecting a privileged labor force from foreign competition

There are a lot of reasons to restrict immigration, this is a very minor one.
Although cheap illegal labor is a problem.

>>4782507
>The point I'm making is that if you add jobs then potentially everyone gets richer: the migrant, the destination country, even the country of origin.

Except adding immigrations doesn't lead to a proportional rise in jobs. Unemployment among immigrants is sky-high where I live.

>There is not a cap on the amount of money in the world

Taking money generated within an economy out of that economy impoverishes that economy.

>The continued drip drip drip of immigration to the United States has only made it more and more powerful as an economy. The UK will eventually be the largest economy in Europe if current trends continue, and guess what? That's mostly down to immigration. Weird.

This is entirely anecdotal and due to a number of factors. Simply increasing native birth rates for instance would do away with the need for immigration according to this logic.

>>4782532
> Are you saying the EU doesn't do protectionism?
No, just that the free movement of labor inside EU is a good example of free trade.
> Also, do you not care about cultures and ethnicities?
When I'm talking about economics, no.
> Countries are the people.
What, no. If a banker from Finland uses Switzerland as a tax paradise and then uses his newly saved wealth to invest in Finnish consumer goods, the country/state gains less money but the people gain more.
> So to you protectionism is a bad word?
In general, yes.
> There are a lot of reasons to restrict immigration, this is a very minor one.
U U U U
> Taking money generated within an economy out of that economy impoverishes that economy.
Not necessarily: the money is used to trade resources, and the economy gains there resources by losing money.
> This is entirely anecdotal and due to a number of factors.
US Labor force thrice in comparison to Western European in 200 years is not anecdotal.
> Simply increasing native birth rates for instance would do away with the need for immigration according to this logic.
Yes, but since controlling birth rate is indeed difficult and considered unethical in most of Western world, you have to make-do.

>>4782529
>Yeah there is me talking about protectionism and whatnot and you talking about work etc.
The free movement or abour or its restriction and protectionism kind of overlap if you ask me, but I guess I am just a crazy person.

>>4782532
>Except adding immigrations doesn't lead to a proportional rise in jobs. Unemployment among immigrants is sky-high where I live.
This may be true, the picture isn't completely equal in all places. However we've been talking in generalities up to now, but if you want to raise a particular, specific example be my guest.

>Taking money generated within an economy out of that economy impoverishes that economy.
Only if you take the narrowest possible view. Things don't happen in isolation.

>This is entirely anecdotal and due to a number of factors. Simply increasing native birth rates for instance would do away with the need for immigration according to this logic.
Haha, well I've never heard the economy of the United States referred to as an anecdote before. Yes raising the birth rate of people born within a developed economy would probably increase the size of the economy. But that seems a lot harder and less beneficial to the world at large than accepting a certain degree of immigration.

>>4782552
>No, just that the free movement of labor inside EU is a good example of free trade.

Europe is a relatively homogenous unit. I'm talking more about immigration from faraway poor countries.

>When I'm talking about economics, no.

We're talking about immigration and all its facets here. If you want to talk abstractions, do so with someone else and at least let them know this.

>What, no.

Yes. Countries are the people as they organize themselves.

>In general, yes.

So people who organize as a country and grow successful are obligated to share this success with the entire world?

>U U U U

What?

>Not necessarily

Well, not if money from country A is used in country B solely to buy products from country A, but what are the odds of that?

>there resources

The word is 'their'.

>US Labor force thrice in comparison to Western European in 200 years is not anecdotal.

It absolutely is. The same effect could have been achieved with increased birthrates.

>but since controlling birth rate is indeed difficult and considered unethical in most of Western world, you have to make-do

A lack of immigration could very well lead to a spontaneous rise in births.

>>4782568
>A lack of immigration could very well lead to a spontaneous rise in births.
Well in fairness it's working out so well for Japan so you may have a point here.

>>4782564
>However we've been talking in generalities up to now, but if you want to raise a particular, specific example be my guest.

I'm not willing to accept unlimited immigration on the basis that it might help.

>Only if you take the narrowest possible view. Things don't happen in isolation.

Well, not if money from country A is used in country B solely to buy products from country A, but what are the odds of that?

On the whole, this impoverishes the economy.

>well I've never heard the economy of the United States referred to as an anecdote before

The fact that the United States were extremely sparsely populated but filled up quickly with immigration is anecdotal.
The story of the US is an extreme rarity.

>But that seems a lot harder and less beneficial to the world at large than accepting a certain degree of immigration.

I have absolutely no problem with "a certain degree of immigration".
Just not limitless, and just not unconditional.

>>4782582
>Well in fairness it's working out so well for Japan so you may have a point here.

Are you saying Japan isn't doing swimmingly? They have the largest population in Japanese history.

>>4782584
>The fact that the United States were extremely sparsely populated but filled up quickly with immigration is anecdotal.
The story of the US is an extreme rarity.
Countries rarely get 'full', again the population that a country can support is elastic and growing all the time.

I live in London which is a powerhouse of economic virility and let me assure you sometimes I fucking wish* that we were at the limit of how many people you can cram into a space, but we aren't.

*most of the time I fucking love it though.

>>4782607
>Countries rarely get 'full', again the population that a country can support is elastic and growing all the time.

I know, but the US was practically empty.

There was almost no way it could have grown to become what it became without massive immigration.
But since this is very rare, and countries usually do not form in that way at that pace, that means this is an anecdotal example. This was my point.

>>4782591
>Are you saying Japan isn't doing swimmingly? They have the largest population in Japanese history.
Yes, but their birthrate means that soon they are going to be very top heavy with pensioners and not enough workers to support them, and they appear to be culturally unable to plug the gap with immigration. They've been struggling with this for a couple of decades now and you can see it reflected in their GDP growth.

European countries face the same issues, but we are importing labour to plug the gap. Hurrah for us. We'll see who ends up ahead 2 decades from now I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Europe wins unless it goes all xenophobic.

>>4782568
> Europe is a relatively homogenous unit. I'm talking more about immigration from faraway poor countries.
Arbitrary statements are arbitrarily.
> We're talking about immigration and all its facets here. If you want to talk abstractions, do so with someone else and at least let them know this.
Why do you taunt me so? I don't care of cultures and ethnicities when talking about immigration: I care about economics. Maybe your opinions are based on feelings about national pride or some other arbitrary traits you wish to defend, but that's not me.
> Yes. Countries are the people as they organize themselves.
I, uh, what?
> So people who organize as a country and grow successful are obligated to share this success with the entire world?
Oh boy, how loaded can a question be. I don't think that freedom of trade is equal to sharing.
> What?
Four U. For you those are important things.
> Well, not if money from country A is used in country B solely to buy products from country A, but what are the odds of that?
Modern econometrics point strongly in the favor of statement "Free trade is the most beneficial alternative for all parties involved economically."
> The word is 'their'.
You're absolutely correct on that!
> It absolutely is.
.. No? It s a fact that can be proven with statistical information and econometrics.
> A lack of immigration could very well lead to a spontaneous rise in births.
This isn't happening in European nations with relatively little immigration i.e Eastern Europe/Baltics/Finlandd.

>>4782616
>Yes, but their birthrate means that soon they are going to be very top heavy with pensioners and not enough workers to support them

That's already fully the case, and they're doing just marvellously.

>>4782621
>I don't care of cultures and ethnicities when talking about immigration

I know you don't, which is why I will no longer discuss this matter with you.

>>4782623
>That's already fully the case, and they're doing just marvellously.
they're doing fine, they could be doing marvellously.

Shinzo Abe has unleashed his three arrows of reform and they're now managing a pretty middling rate of GDP increase for a developed economy. We'll see how long they can keep it up.

>>4782623
> That's already fully the case, and they're doing just marvellously.
Not quite: Japan has the largest relative public debt of all industrial nations in the world, has had two lost decades in which their economic growth has practically halted and other mild issues that have sealed Japan's fate in the eyes of western economics as a declining power.

>>4782628
>they're doing fine, they could be doing marvellously.

They're one of the richest and safest countries in the world, with one of the highest living standards in the world.

>>4782635
>Japan has the largest relative public debt of all industrial nations in the world

Yeah, they practiced a special kind of economy alright.

Still, it's one of the richest, safest countries in the world, with one of the highest living standards. Have been for quite a while now.

>>4782626
Slightly off topic, but culture matters to me.

Like I said I live in London, Barking to be exact. And I am proud as shit of our culture, and that culture is about immigration, change and renewal.

We beat the ever living shit out of the BNP (British National Party) right here and I've never felt so proud in all my life.

So think about that when you talk about defending your culture. There are a variety of different cultures within your country whether you like it or not, and whether or not a single immigrant ever washed up on your shores.

>>4782642
>that culture is about immigration, change and renewal

Strange, when I think of English and cockney culture I think of other things.

>>4782638
>They imperil all they've achieved by not allowing immigration.

>>4782645
>Then come live here, I am deadly serious. You can't live here and not love it, and let me assure you the cockneys that are kicking around here generally love it too, and they're the nicest people you could ever hope to meet.

>>4782638
> richest
22nd in GDP per capita ranking.
> safest
Yes. Denmark is still safer, and there is quite some immigration there!
> highest living standards
And still they have managed to be worse than Germany, Netherlands, US, Sweden and Canada, all known for their large immigration populaces.

>>4782646
I'm the guy you replied to, and that is indeed what some people here are trying to imply.

I can tell you it's a fact of basic economics that the more population you have in a country the more the market expands, and thus the wages of labor increase. We may act like illegal immigrants are a bad thing, but to be honest they are the best thing for small businesses. I guarantee you that some new industries will be popping up soon due to the enlargement and overvaluation of existing production trees.

The fact that this country has over 10% undocumented immigrants is something truly amazing, but we also have one of the highest incarceration rates for illegals yet.

>>4782645
That's because you've got an outdated, Hollywood idea of what England is like.

>>4782655
Sorry I hit reply on the wrong comment. Yes, I see you are with me on this one.

Although I think you are slightly more laissez faire than myself. But I'll take that over the alternative that's for sure.

>>4782654
Is Japan one of the richest, safest, highest-living-standarded countries in the world, yes or no?

And this is despite being surrounded by poorfags (except worst Korea).

Also
>GDP per capita

>>4782670
>yes, but you have to accept that the direction of travel is not looking brilliant, and that that is down to a declining birthrate. Something that other countries are fixing with immigration.

>>4782652
Oh I'm sure it's fun, but it's not the cockney culture of your grandfather.

>>4782665
>outdated

Absolutely. Since mass immigration the culture is radically changed.

>>4782675
>you have to accept that the direction of travel is not looking brilliant, and that that is down to a declining birthrate

The population ageing in Japan is at its peak, and they're doing just fine.

>>4782678
>Oh I'm sure it's fun, but it's not the cockney culture of your grandfather.

So? Barking wasn't even a place not so very long ago. Things change. This is a glorious moment to live here and when people look back at this time plenty of them will wish that they could have experienced it.

>>4782683
>So?

So I think it's a shame cultures have to be willingly changed because of muh multiculti.

>>4782681
For now.

Yet in future?

>>4782681
>The population ageing in Japan is at its peak, and they're doing just fine.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEEQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fesa%2Fpopulation%2Fpublications%2Fmigration%2Fjapan.pdf&ei=yGNOU7G8EeSv7AbXiYCIDA&usg=AFQjCNEi20tycp76_a8pPUj1dI4IyDtXLw&bvm=bv.64764171,d.ZGU

Not necessarily.

>>4782686
But cultures always evolve in some manner, be it with or without multiculturalism.

>>4782690
People have been saying Japan was going to tank since the late 1980s.

>>4782695
>Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily.

>>4782699
>But cultures always evolve in some manner, be it with or without multiculturalism.

Yes, so let them evolve. Don't force this evolution in the direction you want it to because of muh multiculti.

>>4782686
>Not very long from now Barking will be overrun by a tide of rich white people who can't afford to live in Greenwich or wherever. The culture will change yet again. But hey, I suspect that that particular cultural shift will matter less to you.

>>4782705
Yes it will matter less to me, because those people's ethnicities and cultures will be much closer to the original culture.

>>4782703
> People have been saying Japan was going to tank since the late 1980s.
And it has! They are no longer the second largest economy in the world growing 5% a year. They grow slower than even Yurop!

> Yes, so let them evolve. Don't force this evolution in the direction you want it to because of muh multiculti.
What, why not?

>>4782703
>Yes, so let them evolve. Don't force this evolution in the direction you want it to because of muh multiculti.

Don't force stasis on me. I want this, why does my voice matter less than yours?

There are places where you can go to live in your monocultural idyll if you so desire.

>>4782703
>>4782686
>>4782713
There is no "original culture" you fucking buffoon, it is an idea that only exists in your head.

>>4782713
The original culture being?

>>4782718
>And it has!

Lol.

>They are no longer the second largest economy in the world growing 5% a year. They grow slower than even Yurop!

It's normal for countries' GDP growth to slow down. And Japan is at 2%, much MUCH better than almost every European country.
More than twice that of Germany.

>What, why not?
Because it's wrong.

>>4782720
>Don't force stasis on me. I want this, why does my voice matter less than yours?

Don't force multiculti on me. I don't want this.

You want multiculti you move somewhere else.

>>4782722
>There is no "original culture" you fucking buffoon, it is an idea that only exists in your head.

Lol ok bro.

The fact that entire towns around Brussels are majority Moroccan and islamic totally doesn't mean the original Flemish culture was displaced.

Why do you hate cultures?

>>4782723
>The original culture being?

Whatever locality the guy was talking about.

>>4782738
>It's normal for countries' GDP growth to slow down. And Japan is at 2%, much MUCH better than almost every European country.
More than twice that of Germany.
This is a moment in time that is extremely flattering to Japan. As I mentioned before this is directly after Shinzo Abe's reforms, and at the tail end of the Euro Crisis. Let's see how things shake out in the future.

>Don't force multiculti on me. I don't want this. You want multiculti you move somewhere else.

I did move somewhere else I work for the NHS. The previous hospital I worked at had 0 black people admitted during 2007/2008 period.

You want monoculture you move somewhere else, it's out there. It's weird though nobody seems to want to live in those places.

>>4782738
> It's normal for countries' GDP growth to slow down.
Not as much as Japans.
> And Japan is at 2%, much MUCH better than almost every European country.
See: Pic.
> Because it's wrong.
Why?
> Whatever locality the guy was talking about.
What, London Suburb culture?

>>4782760
>This is a moment in time that is extremely flattering to Japan. As I mentioned before this is directly after Shinzo Abe's reforms, and at the tail end of the Euro Crisis. Let's see how things shake out in the future.

Stop being autistic and simply concede that Japan is doing swimmingly without immigration and with low birth rates.

>You want monoculture you move somewhere else

That's not how it works.

>>4782762
>Not as much as Japans.

If you say so.

>See: Pic.

Is that supposed to prove Japan is doing badly or something?

>Why?

Because I like cultures, and hate to see them willfully mixed up and turned into something planned.

>What, London Suburb culture?

Yes.

>>4782738
>because it's wrong
>muh multiculti
>why do you hate cultures

Jesus christ...you don't really seem to understand what cultures even are.

>>4782778
Epic argument bro.

>>4782765
> Is that supposed to prove Japan is doing badly or something?
That its doing worse than Germany or US.
> Yes.
Which forcefully replaced another culture once.

>>4782765
>Is that supposed to prove Japan is doing badly or something?
It's doing fine, it could be doing marvelously. It's trajectory is not looking pretty compared to other developed economies.

>Barking is a suburb of London
Fuck you guys. London is a suburb of Barking. And I will stand by that until I get bored of making things up.

>Moving to a monoculture
I think you'll find that's exactly how it works. People move to be near the things they find attractive all the time. Hey, it may even help you sympathise with immigrants.

>>4782783
>That its doing worse than Germany or US.

By some standards, and by the slightest of margins, and Germany is among the leading economies in the world.

Just eat your words already and concede that Japan is doing swimmingly.

>Which forcefully replaced another culture once.

Sure, but not because a bunch of leftists sat at a desk and said "we will import brown people now".

>>4782782
There is no point in arguing with you, "bro". You're on the level of my racist neighbor pissed at the "islamic invasion" of Germany.

>>4782791
>It's doing fine, it could be doing marvelously.

If you say so.

>It's trajectory is not looking pretty compared to other developed economies.

Sure it is.

>People move to be near the things they find attractive all the time.

And that means we should let them do so without obstacles?

Used to be people defended their territory with deadly force.

I like cultures, and am in no hurry to move to a globally unified one.

>>4782796
>be anti-immigration
>"racist"

The last bastion of the crying leftist multiculti dicksucker.

>>4782794
>Just eat your words already and concede that Japan is doing swimmingly.
I won't. Japan's economy is growing less than the world's and the developed world's. It's not doing great.

> Sure, but not because a bunch of leftists sat at a desk and said "we will import brown people now".
So its wrong because leftists did it as opposed to right wing people saying that "we'll import rural folk now" when planning a suburb?

Jumbalalabdia has too many doctors, America has too few. Jumbalalabdian doctor migrates to America. Not seeing any flaws in that. Besides, some countries like to think they're more than efficient factories, and try to value individuals wants

>>4782801
I'm not saying youre racist, you just argue in the same manner. I don't think multi culture is the solution either, by the way.

>>4782804
>I won't. Japan's economy is growing less than the world's and the developed world's. It's not doing great.

I understand, cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing.

>So its wrong because leftists did it as opposed to right wing people saying that "we'll import rural folk now" when planning a suburb?

Things tend to be much worse as scale and intensity grows, yes.

>>4782807
>I'm not saying youre racist, you just argue in the same manner.

Lol ok bro.

>>4782806
>Not seeing any flaws in that

I don't have a problem with limited, quality-based immigration either.

>>4782808
US economy is growing less than China's and India's and Lybia's. It's not doing great.

>>4782801
> And that means we should let them do so without obstacles?
Yes.
> Used to be people defended their territory with deadly force.
And in 1914 France you could be executed without a trial for being suspected as an Anarchist - So? How is the past relevant in this? Are you saying that EU Borders are not defended?
>I like cultures, and am in no hurry to move to a globally unified one.
Why would immigration kill your culture again? In America, white immigrants rarely gave up their original cultures completely, rather allowing the American one exist alongside the German-American or Italian-American ones.

>>4782804
US economy is growing less than China's and India's and Lybia's. It's not doing great.

>>4782817
Oh boy, allegories.

Japan's economy is growing less than an average country's. And since "doing well" is relative, it can be said that Japan is not doing as well as over half of World's countries. Thus, it is not doing well.

>>4782801
>Used to be people defended their territory with deadly force.
That worked out real well for everyone involved obviously.

>I like cultures, and am in no hurry to move to a globally unified one.
We won't I wouldn't sweat it. Although maybe some of the very roughest edges will be rounded off.

>And that means we should let them do so without obstacles?
No, limits make sense, but getting rid of the whole idea of immigration seems a little extreme.

As that graph points out having a measure of immigration at the very least doesn't destroy an economy.

>>4782253
>The immigrant typically has a hard time adjusting to western society and usually becomes: unhappy, unfit and has an increased chance to become a burden to society.
>They often live secluded in ghettos, effectively splitting the local communities.

Replace "immigrant" with "Negro" and you have an argument for imprisoning all black people.

I bet some of you cunts still wouldn't see a problem.

>>4782825
>Yes.

Why do you hate different cultures and races?

>How is the past relevant in this?

Protip: the past is always relevant.
When people build a successful society they will wish to defend it.
Allowing everyone who wishes to enter said society is a recipe for disaster.

>Are you saying that EU Borders are not defended?

Lol no.
I'm saying they should be.

>Why would immigration kill your culture again?

Oh boy.

>>4782831
>And since "doing well" is relative, it can be said that Japan is not doing as well as over half of World's countries. Thus, it is not doing well.

Yes, and the US is also not doing well because China, India and Libya have better GDP growth.

>>4782839
>When people build a successful society they will wish to defend it.
>Allowing everyone who wishes to enter said society is a recipe for disaster.

And so, once again, it becomes evident that most discussion about immigration comes down to "fuck you, got mine."

>>4782832
>That worked out real well for everyone involved obviously.

If you as a society didn't defend your territory you disappeared.

>We won't I wouldn't sweat it.

Oh thanks, I feel so much better now.

>No, limits make sense, but getting rid of the whole idea of immigration seems a little extreme.

Who said to get rid of immigration altogether?
I have repeated many times that I'm fully in favor of small-scale, quality-based immigration.

>>4782826
>US economy is growing less than China's and India's and Lybia's. It's not doing great.
Developed vs undeveloped economies. The comparison is hardly fair.

>>4782835
>Replace "immigrant" with "Negro" and you have a strawman argument

Fixed that for you.

>>4782852
>I like foreigners as long as they serve my capitalist interest.

>>4782845
>it becomes evident that most discussion about immigration comes down to "fuck you, got mine."

If that's how you feel, you probably shelter a bunch of homeless people in your house right now.

>>4782839
> Why do you hate different cultures and races?
Oh boy, this rhetoric. I don't. I like freedom of travel and labor movement though.
> Protip: the past is always relevant.
What? Is this an answer to my question?
> When people build a successful society they will wish to defend it.
Ignoring the fact that successful society is an arbitrary term, I wonder, what sort of a successful society was build on isolationist principles?
> Allowing everyone who wishes to enter said society is a recipe for disaster.
Why? Because you feel that there is a special privileged group that should have the freedom to enter and leave the society freely?

>>4782854
>Developed vs undeveloped economies. The comparison is hardly fair.

Lol ok.

The US economy is growing less than Norway's, Russia's, Israel's, Australia's, Latvia's, Lithuania's, Estonia's, ...
It's not doing great.

>>4782860
To be fair, that has been the mentality of the United States since day one. That poster is just being a faithful citizen.

>>4782843
Oh boy, a stubborn arse.

>>4782860
As long as they're not to become a net drain on my country.

>>4782870
US economy is growing faster than 50% of developed countries, therefore it is doing well.

Japan's economy isn't growing faster than 50% of developed countries, therefore it is not doing welll.

>>4782876
I can guarantee you that the only way a foreigner would be a net drain on your country is if they were stealing military supplies and hacking our computer systems. See: Chinese.

>>4782870
>The US economy is growing less than Norway's, Russia's, Israel's, Australia's, Latvia's, Lithuania's, Estonia's, ...It's not doing great.
Today maybe not the hottest commodity I'll warrant you. There's peaks and troughs for very country, but the long run trend for the US at least in terms of GDP is very strong.

I'd happily put my money on the US growing quicker than Japan over the next 20 years for example.

>>4782879
TODAY. Look at the long term growth rates.

>>4782861
Actually I live in a country where there are zero people forced to be homeless due to their economic problems.

>>4782885
In the past 25 years, that has been the case. Is that not good enough for you?

>>4782881
Give it up, America is stagnant. If we don't grip into some alternative energy sources soon we are going to be hurting down the road.

>>4782868
>Oh boy, this rhetoric. I don't. I like freedom of travel and labor movement though.

But you do realize that putting different cultures together ultimately leads to destruction/assimilation/fusion right?

>What? Is this an answer to my question?

"The past is always relevant" is a direct answer to your question "how is the past relevant in this".

>Ignoring the fact that successful society is an arbitrary term, I wonder, what sort of a successful society was build on isolationist principles?

Japan, for instance.

>Why?

Because when you are at a certain level, and allow yourself to be outnumbered and out-voted by people of a completely different level (in case of immigrants, generally a much lower level), the country will correct itself to that lower level.

>>4782874
Oh boy, a non-argument.

>>4782879
>US economy is growing faster than 50% of developed countries, therefore it is doing well.

Lol, dat arbitrary cutoff.

>>4782881
>blablabla

Just eat your words and admit Japan is doing swimmingly. Which they are.

>>4782886
>Actually I live in a country where there are zero people forced to be homeless due to their economic problems.

And where is that?

Also, then you probably shelter a bunch of people who are less wealthy than you.

>>4782890
>In the past 25 years, that has been the case. Is that not good enough for you?
As demonstrated by the linked graph this is not true.

>>4782896
>Just eat your words and admit Japan is doing swimmingly. Which they are.
I've said that they are doing fine, if you want me to use the word swimmingly instead okay. Japan is doing swimmingly.

I interpret that as a B or C grade average student. It's fine. But they could be doing better.

Long term the US on the other hand is an A- in terms of GDP growth and I put my money on that trend continuing. Japan I would be extremely cautious on whether or not they can even maintain their current trajectory.

>>4782912
>Japan is doing swimmingly.

Thank you.

>>4782915
what the flying fuck?

Japan is not doing "swimmingly"

Its a shit country on many fronts

>>4782896
>Because when you are at a certain level, and allow yourself to be outnumbered and out-voted by people of a completely different level (in case of immigrants, generally a much lower level), the country will correct itself to that lower level.

Let me give you an example of this:

I personally feel that equality between the sexes is a good thing. However, if you allow your country to be flooded with muslim immigrants, then you risk losing equality between the sexes if they out-vote you.
This tends to get worse as generations accumulate btw, in Western Europe third-generation muslim immigrants are in many ways more strict about their islamic beliefs than their grandfathers ever were.

>>4782896
> But you do realize that putting different cultures together ultimately leads to destruction/assimilation/fusion right?
And I don't see how that makes me hate cultures.
> Japan, for instance.
Japan had isolationist policies under Tokugawa Shogunate. After Meiji Restauration, complete opposite - Japan attempted to suck as much western influences as possible.
> Because when you are at a certain level, and allow yourself to be outnumbered and out-voted by people of a completely different level (in case of immigrants, generally a much lower level), the country will correct itself to that lower level.
So you are saying that immigrants are inherently of lower level?
> Lol, dat arbitrary cutoff.
Yeah I mean doing better than most does somehow not imply that, maing it arbitrary.
> Just eat your words and admit Japan is doing swimmingly. Which they are.
Say it enough and it'll be true ;)
> And where is that?
Finland.

> Also, then you probably shelter a bunch of people who are less wealthy than you.
No, but I contribute to their sheltering by paying taxes.

>>4782915
>Thank you.
Now we've acknowledged that can we discuss the actual topic at hand? Japan's long term trends versus other developed nations and the role of demography in that?

I suggest that their previous growth rates for the last 25 years have been below the developed nation average and will continue to be so for the next 25 years.

And while this is hardly a catastrophe it does mean that Japan is underperforming.

A possible solution to these issues given that they are largely demographic in nature is to accept a measure of controlled immigration.

>>4782924
Ok.

>>4782927
>Finland
Anonymous2 status: is currently reading the Moomin comics. Thank you Finland.

>>4782927
>And I don't see how that makes me hate cultures.

You don't see how willfully planning the destruction/assimilation/fusion of cultures makes you a culture hater?

Maybe you're right, you just love the culture YOU want: "multiculture" (which is artificial and actually anti-culture).

>Japan had isolationist policies under Tokugawa Shogunate. After Meiji Restauration, complete opposite - Japan attempted to suck as much western influences as possible.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about 95%+ on the isolationist scale.

>So you are saying that immigrants are inherently of lower level?

In many ways, not the least of which education, most definitely so.

>Yeah I mean doing better than most does somehow not imply that, maing it arbitrary.

You don't have to be doing "better than most" to be doing "well".

>Finland.

http://www.housingfirst.fi/en/housing_first/homelessness_in_finland
"Like everywhere in the world, homelessness is a difficult and a persistent phenomenon also in Finland."

>No, but I contribute to their sheltering by paying taxes.

And western countries contribute to poor countries by way of foreign aid.
No need to allow masses of immigrants in to keep us from feeling guilty.

>>4782928
My only point was that Japan is a largely monocultural nation, but is still doing swimmingly.

>>4782927
>Finland
>no homeless people

These are the clueless faggots advocating multiculturalism.

>>4782926
>I personally feel that equality between the sexes is a good thing. However, if you allow your country to be flooded with muslim immigrants, then you risk losing equality between the sexes if they out-vote you. This tends to get worse as generations accumulate btw, in Western Europe third-generation muslim immigrants are in many ways more strict about their islamic beliefs than their grandfathers ever were.
I live with a muslim currently, he's a nice guy. Doesn't seem to want to oppress me, or my wife very much.

He' worried about the elections back home in India at the moment. His family still lives over there and they feel threatened by a possible BJP win. Over a thousand muslims killed in Gujarat during rioting while the BJP candidate was in office and seemed to do very little to help and yet the guy is still electable?

Muslims are not the enemy, the world is more complicated than you think it is.

>>4782927
>So you are saying that immigrants are inherently of lower level?

See >>4782926

>>4782930
fucking explain you piece of shit

>>4782941
> You don't see how willfully planning the destruction/assimilation/fusion of cultures makes you a culture hater?
I'm not willfully planning on destroying any cultures, though.

> Maybe you're right, you just love the culture YOU want: "multiculture" (which is artificial and actually anti-culture).
Oh boy, rhetorics!

> Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about 95%+ on the isolationist scale.
Poor you.

> You don't have to be doing "better than most" to be doing "well".
But you do!

> "Like everywhere in the world, homelessness is a difficult and a persistent phenomenon also in Finland."
I never said that Finland does not have homelessness, just that nobody is forced to be homeless due to economical circumstances unlike in countries such as US. Welfare covers rent for anyone unable to make do.
> No need to allow masses of immigrants in to keep us from feeling guilty.
And I did not say that guilt was a reason to allow immigration, but freedom of trade.

>>4782953
Misread me ;)
Nice rhetoric tho.

>>4782955
>Muslims are not the enemy, the world is more complicated than you think it is.

In western Europe they generally grow more radical with each successive generation.

If you allow them to out-vote you, they will push for things such as gender inequality and sharia law.

>>4782962
>I'm not willfully planning on destroying any cultures, though.

If you support limitless immigration, yes you do.

>But you do!

No, you really don't.

>I never said that Finland does not have homelessness, just that nobody is forced to be homeless due to economical circumstances unlike in countries such as US. Welfare covers rent for anyone unable to make do.

So there are homeless people, you just don't want them in your house instead of shitty social housing?

>And I did not say that guilt was a reason to allow immigration, but freedom of trade.

We don't need immigrants to trade freely.

>>4782944
>My only point was that Japan is a largely monocultural nation, but is still doing swimmingly.
And my point is that they'd be doing better economically if they had a larger dose of immigration.

>>4782965
In western Europe war veterans grew more radical with each successive generation before WW2.

do you even alienation

>>4782960
Your opinion that Japan is a "shit country on many fronts" does not stop it from doing swimmingly.

>>4782969
>And my point is that they'd be doing better economically if they had a larger dose of immigration.

Maybe, maybe not.

Perhaps they don't feel the hassle is worth it.

Why do you hate Japanese culture though?
Why must everything be about money, and not about the beauty of mankind and its wonderfully different cultures?

>>4782970
>In western Europe war veterans grew more radical with each successive generation before WW2.

Yes, and that was a bad thing as well.

>>4782965
>In western Europe they generally grow more radical with each successive generation.
Not in my direct experience of living and working with muslims they don't.

I'm going to need some actual evidence to demonstrate an increase in radicalisation over time versus the size of the muslim population in a given country or region.

>>4782968
> If you support limitless immigration, yes you do.
In your rhetoric, perhaps. Me? I just advocate free movement of people. After twenty years of limitless immigration inside EU, my dear Finland still has its culture flourishing.
> So there are homeless people, you just don't want them in your house instead of shitty social housing?
There are homeless people, but they are homeless due their choice of turning down welfare apartment or something similar. Anyways the social houses aren't even shitty. And no, I don't think that houses are a good analogy for countries.
> We don't need immigrants to trade freely.
For a truly free trading system, there cannot be protectionist policies such as limited immigration.

>>4782977
>Me? I just advocate free movement of people

And therefore limitless immigration.

And therefore the destruction/assimilation/fusion of cultures

>There are homeless people, but they are homeless due their choice of turning down welfare apartment or something similar.

But why don't you allow homeless people in your house? Surely it's a lot nicer than welfare housing. And even if it isn't, they'll appreciate the company and your cooking.

>For a truly free trading system, there cannot be protectionist policies such as limited immigration.

Good thing there is no truly free trading system.

>>4782974
> Perhaps they don't feel the hassle is worth it.
They don't and they are suffering for it.
> Why do you hate Japanese culture though?
I don't though.
> Why must everything be about money, and not about the beauty of mankind and its wonderfully different cultures?
Because economy is a quantifiable institution that improves peoples lives, while the latter is a reactionary rhetorical statement based on feelings.

I would love to see some "middle-ground" immigration parties in Europe, at least all the current Nordic anti-immigration parties share the same problem that they focus on immigration with autistic intensity, leaving the rest of their platform (especially economy) an incoherent trainwreck.

>>4782979
>Not in my direct experience of living and working with muslims they don't.

Well I guess your anecdotal evidence trumps actual findings.

>I'm going to need some actual evidence to demonstrate an increase in radicalisation over time versus the size of the muslim population in a given country or region.

No you don't, but here's a Muslim girl's dissertation on the matter. It's sourced.
http://www.scriptiebank.be/sites/default/files/webform/scriptie/Masterproef_1.pdf

>>4782981
>They don't and they are suffering for it.

I thought they were doing swimmingly?

>I don't though.

But you just said they should allow large-scale immigration?

>Because economy is a quantifiable institution that improves peoples lives, while the latter is a reactionary rhetorical statement based on feelings.

Right, so money is important but culture and art and philosophy is not? Got it.

I feel sorry for you anon.

>>4782980
The thing is that I don't believe in your assumption that limitless immigration destroys cultures. Assimilation and fusion? Those don't destroy, they preserve the seeds of past.
> But why don't you allow homeless people in your house?
I allow them into my house; yet they choose not to come.

>>4782974
>Why do you hate Japanese culture though?
I don't I'm sure it's got lots to admire.

>Why must everything be about money, and not about the beauty of mankind and its wonderfully different cultures?
I have strongly celebrated the culture of the place I live (Barking), I said
>"This is a glorious moment to live here and when people look back at this time plenty of them will wish that they could have experienced it.",

and also

>"... I am proud as shit of our culture"

So while I think there are economic benefits to immigration the cultural benefits are much easier to demonstrate.

>>4782987
> I thought they were doing swimmingly?
I wasn't the anon who said that. I still keep to my viewpoint that Japan is doing worse than they could, thus, they are suffering.
> But you just said they should allow large-scale immigration?
Yep.
> Right, so money is important but culture and art and philosophy is not? Got it.
I'm sorry, are you implying that art and philosophy cannot thrive in a multicultural society? Are you equating culture with its products?

>>4782989
>I don't believe in your assumption that limitless immigration destroys cultures

Well it does.

>Assimilation and fusion? Those don't destroy, they preserve the seeds of past.

The assimilation and fusion of cultures can be a beautiful thing, but not when it's a bunch of leftists around a table saying "and now we shall import large numbers of poor brown people".

>I allow them into my house; yet they choose not to come.

They won't come if you don't go out and invite them.

>>4782990
>I have strongly celebrated the culture of the place I live (Barking), I said "This is a glorious moment to live here and when people look back at this time plenty of them will wish that they could have experienced it.",

That's not the culture of Barking you're celebrating, that's multiculti.

>the cultural benefits

Hands off my culture.

>>4782985
Sorry, English please.

>>4782992
> Well it does.
Then can you explain why Finland's culture has not been destroyed?
> The assimilation and fusion of cultures can be a beautiful thing, but not when it's a bunch of leftists around a table saying "and now we shall import large numbers of poor brown people".
Ah, so, your argument is based on your feelings? I don't care for such.
> They won't come if you don't go out and invite them.
I feel no need to invite them: they have a freedom, not a duty to immigrate into my house if they so wish to.

>>4782991
>I wasn't the anon who said that. I still keep to my viewpoint that Japan is doing worse than they could, thus, they are suffering.

They're doing swimmingly.
They're only ever so slightly behind Germany in some ways, and ahead in others.

>I'm sorry, are you implying that art and philosophy cannot thrive in a multicultural society?

Lol, that's not at all what I said.

I'm saying different human cultures are beautiful and show what humans can do and accomplish, like philosophy and art.

>>4782995
>Sorry, English please.

First thing I found after two seconds of googling:
http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/global-issues/islamic-studies/1663-he-radicalization-of-muslim-immigrants-from-the-second-and-third-generation-in-europe-does-inspire-magazine-tell-us-something-about-it.html

>>4782998
> I'm saying different human cultures are beautiful
You're saying "muh feelings"?
> show what humans can do and accomplish, like philosophy and art
Those are accomplishments of people, of individuals, not of cultures, though. Why celebrate the culture for achievements of individual men?

>>4782994
>That's not the culture of Barking you're celebrating, that's multiculti.
It very much is the culture of Barking. You don't get to dictate to us what we are.

Like I said I think this is a unique moment in time, this culture will pass, but right now right at this very moment this is our culture and we are proud of it. This is my home and I love it as much as you love yours I promise you.

>>4782997
>Then can you explain why Finland's culture has not been destroyed?

Because Finnish people don't want large-scale immigration.
Also, it takes time to destroy a culture.

>Ah, so, your argument is based on your feelings? I don't care for such.

The argument is based on not importing masses of people from vastly different cultures in an effort to preserve indigenous culture.

>I feel no need to invite them

And I feel no need to invite large masses of immigrants.

>they have a freedom, not a duty to immigrate into my house if they so wish to.

Lol, go ask five legit homeless people if they want to stay at your place.

>>4783004
>You're saying "muh feelings"?

I'm saying "muh humanity".

>Those are accomplishments of people, of individuals, not of cultures, though.

Yeah, you're right. Art and philosophy totally aren't classified by culture or anything.

>>4783006
>It very much is the culture of Barking.

Yes, with a heavy multiculti aspect.

>You don't get to dictate to us what we are.

You yourself will admit that Barking is a multicultural society.

>>4783004
>Those are accomplishments of people, of individuals, not of cultures

What is:
Greek philosophy, Roman architecture, Italian renaissance, Flemish primitives, Byzantine art, ...

You people are making me lose my faith in humanity over here.

>>4783009
> Because Finnish people don't want large-scale immigration.
Actually we voted our way into EU, which implies that yes, we do want free movement of people and labor inside EU.
> The argument is based on not importing masses of people from vastly different cultures in an effort to preserve indigenous culture.
Limitless immigration =/= Importing people. Someone chooses to move to Finland, not the other way. And that argument is based on emotions, feelings towards having to protect cultures as if it would be of grave importance.
> Lol, go ask five legit homeless people if they want to stay at your place.
Nah, I'll let them ask me.
>>4783012
> I'm saying "muh humanity".
So you are saying "muh feelings".
> Yeah, you're right. Art and philosophy totally aren't classified by culture or anything.
They shouldn't.

>>4783019
Those are sets used to denominate the works similar cultural context.

Yet all works of "Greek philosophy" were produced by individual people or small groups of people who did not even identify themselves as Greeks but rather as Athenians or World Citizens.

>>4783003
>First thing I found after two seconds of googling:
I read your link (although I suspect you didn't). There isn't much to say about it, this is an opinion piece dressed up as academic literature.

Yes some muslims are radicalised. I would like a discussion about how prevalent and serious a problem this is versus the benefits of migration in general.

>>4783014
>You yourself will admit that Barking is a multicultural society.
Yes, this is a multicultural area, but there is also a shared culture, and a strong influence from the cockney culture that shares this space.

>>4783023
>Actually we voted our way into EU

"Numerous polls in 2010 indicated that the majority of the Finnish people wants to limit immigration to the country in order to preserve regional cultural diversity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Finland#cite_note-2

There's a difference between "freedom of movement" within the EU and large-scale immigration from vastly different cultures.

>Limitless immigration =/= Importing people.

But it is.

>feelings towards having to protect cultures as if it would be of grave importance.

Cultures are important.

>Nah, I'll let them ask me.

No, you should go and ask them. They don't know that they're welcome at your house.

>So you are saying "muh feelings".

Humanity has a lot to do with feelings, yes.

>They shouldn't.

You are a retard.

>>4783025
>Those are sets used to denominate the works similar cultural context.

Exactly.

>Yet all works of "Greek philosophy" were produced by individual people

You don't say?

>>4783026
>I read your link (although I suspect you didn't). There isn't much to say about it, this is an opinion piece dressed up as academic literature.

I don't have to do your work for you. It's by now largely known that muslims tend to cling more to their religion with each passing generation.
It's part of the reason why Western Europe's leaders acknowledged the failure of multiculturalism and integration a few years back.

>>4783029
>Yes, this is a multicultural area

Then there was no need to fly off the handle now was there?

>>4783023
>They shouldn't.

So art and philosophy should NOT be classified by culture according to you?