Why do you oppose them?
- The crime they don’t bring?
- Economic losses they don’t cause to citizen workers?
- Economic gains to domestic businesses?
- The contributions to social security & medicare they don’t get back?
- Because they’re not white?
- Because outsiders are convenient scapegoats for politicians to blame & flex power?
It’s important to pin down clear, substantiated reasons.
From The Business of Migrant Detention covering the history of anti-immigration policies & its disparate treatment of white & brown immigrants
ARABLOUEI: OK. If federal government’s spending all this money to detain and then deport people and a lot of times they’re coming back in the country, and it’s not actually achieving anything economically in terms of supporting American workers and it’s actually hurting American companies, why? Like, why are they doing this if there’s no material benefit to the economy or to protecting workers?
NOFIL: To me, it is a core question of sort of who is an American. Immigration detention’s roots are in this moment that is so blatantly racist, that sort of - you know, the Chinese Exclusion Act pulls no punches about what it is doing. It is targeted to a specific group of people. But that is where we get the legal precedents that undergird this entire system today. It is a system that has only really ever, to my opinion, receded. Immigration detention is only really ever rolled back when it is seen as threatening whiteness. And it is a system that has, you know, continually expanded and gained public support by, you know, targeting racialized people, by targeting people who Americans are encouraged to imagine as maybe kind of criminal anyway, right? It is doing political work, and it is doing work that I think is, like, really revealing about how the nation sees itself.
look at canada
Not intrinsically, but pretty commonly it is driven by bigotry over culture, religion or skin colour.
You know all the people up in arms over the wave of Ukrainian refugees? Oh wait, there’s nothing of the sort? Well, there you go.
I think it’s very telling that it’s not about “How do we allow them in legally” but it’s about “Kick them out”. If they were simply mad about illegal immigration then the natural discourse would be “Why do they not come over legally then?” The answer there is that of course it’s insanely difficult to legally become a citizen of the US, and it can take years - even decades, but people have a family that’s hungry now.
The discourse going to “Kick them out” shows that it’s not about legal immigration at all, it’s that they don’t want a specific type of person around them. Otherwise we’d be having fairs and events to help people get their citizenship right now. After all they want to be here, the even want to pay taxes. If they just need to come in legally then the vast majority would, if our process allowed it.
The answer there is that of course it’s insanely difficult to legally become a citizen of the US, and it can take years - even decades, but people have a family that’s hungry now.
Same for other places. Even Canada, which is apparently one of the best destinations, has a system that’s poorly designed to the point of maliciousness.
It took my dad about 15-20 years in the US to get citizenship. It took my friend about 10 in Canada. Both are fucking terrible, but the US is a special kind of processed garbage
Exactly. In and of itself, criticizing illegal immigration is simply criticizing an illegal act. However, it is usually steeped in racist logic and arguments. Talking about how people who come over our southern border are genetically inferior and prone to crime is racist as fuck. Adding roadblocks to immigration for brown people while simultaneously streamlining immigration of white South Africans (the guys who did Apartheid) is racist as fuck.
There for sure was.
Where, and to what degree relative to Arabs or Latin Americans or whatever?
Like sure, you can find someone who said it was bad somewhere, but even in places like Romania or Poland they were never the main target of the xenophobic rage.
I live in SC. There was a big uproar about it and an even bigger one that the news shrugged its shoulders and went “eh, not really news worth.”
Well, that’s the where. How big, relative to dissatisfaction over Latin Americans?
I’m pretty sure it’s negligible by comparison. Because I know America.
Thats because the media didnt try to cause mass hysteria. Man you guys are so easily manipulated by media i think we should force psychological classes so you can see the warning signs of manipulation
Edit: you are the easiest people to manipulate and its already obvious.
Uh-huh. Straight to forced re-education programs and shadowy conspiracies.
When the fascists send people to argue for them, they’re not sending their best.
Edit: Cool cowardly edit.
No no… that’s their best.
Yeah, TBF it’s not an ideology that really pulls the best and brightest,
Hopefully you’ll be in that class.
Short answer yes with an if. The long answer is no with a but.
I’d say it’s racist if someone is complaining about illegal immigrants alongside a general contempt of ‘foreigners’ and not paying attention to the details of why it’s illegal for them to migrate the way they did and what options are available for legal migration.
It’s not racist to be opposed to those who are in violation of the law, as that is not a racial or ethnic classification. But it is important to be inquisitive as to why the law is the way that it is, and be willing to consider the possibility that just because something is against the law does not mean that it should be. Law has long been used as a tool of systemic oppression and racism, as well as many other horrific abuses inflicted on people.
yes. the ones complaining about “immigrants” at all are the ones who made their lives shit in the first place.
let them in and fucking take care of them.
I wouldn’t say it’s racist to oppose illegal immigration, but it makes me suspect you might be and also makes me think you have very little empathy.
I feel like “illegal” immigration as a concept is inherently racist and being upset and anyone for not coming over the “right” way is also racist.
Even if the law bars say only pedodiles from entry? Just hung up on the word anyone here. I’m guessing there are some number of people we can all agree should be kept outside of a given sect of people. Even back in the day there would be exile’s.
Then if we say some number of people should be bared there would be a “right” way.
I’m not saying immigration policy is good now. Far from it.
Who decides if someone’s a pedophile or not? How are you going to track that? Force people to take a test or something? Hell, currently we’re in a world where queer people, especially trans people, are called “groomers” and “pedophiles” for the sheer act of being trans. So you call people you don’t want to come in pedophiles and then they can’t come in. Nope, no trans people allowed because we’re all “pedophiles” according to the government.
Okay what, you’re going to limit it to people who’ve been convicted of child sex crimes. Well, then they make the existence of people who they don’t like count as sex crimes. Again, as is happening to trans people. Existing in public as yourself is a crime so you’re charged and treated the same as a pedophile.
So we’ve already covered why your logic is completely broken and this idea is stupid. But let’s push all of that aside. For the sake of argument, best case scenario, we are only talking about actual genuine pedophiles. Have they committed a crime? Are they in prison? Then they’re not crossing any borders since they’re incarcerated.
What if they haven’t committed a crime yet? Well then we’d have no way of knowing they’re a pedophile unless they admitted it themselves. And no these people shouldn’t be punished just for having those sexual desires. For one, most people are able to control themselves despite sexual urges. Cases of rapes and sexual assault are the result of power dynamics, not random uncontrollable urges. And two, these people should be given help given this could cause genuine mental distress.
What if they’ve committed a crime but served their time? Well, what justification is there to stop them? What if they harm another child? Well what if they do it in their own country? That’s not going to make a difference. And this also goes into the complex issue that is the prison system and how it’s largely useless at doing anything other than containing people as a punishment rather than actually attempting to help reform people.
Anyway no, I don’t think there’s any justification for restricting any kind of “undesirable” from entering a country. Beyond anything else, it just ends up a loophole to punish any group of people you don’t like by branding them as that undesirable. Same for every human right. If it doesn’t apply to everyone then it applies to no one.
And if you’re a special kind of dumbass who’d say “well what about nazis/the kkk/etc”, the answer is that ideologies that are inherently intolerant of other people just for existing do not get the benefit of tolerance themselves.
Not sure where the vitriol is coming from. Did I do something to personally offend you? I’m guessing you are just not fully comfortable with your ideas.
Force people to take a test or something?
“Would you have sex with this child holds up picture of child?” “Yes…” “Well, you are not allowed in.” Yeah, I would be okay with that tbh.
anyone
“well what about nazis/the kkk/etc”, the answer is that ideologies that are inherently intolerant of other people just for existing do not get the benefit of tolerance themselves.
Oh so we agree as I said in my original post “Just hung up on the word anyone here” you would prevent some amount of people from coming over… So it’s not inherently racist to make nazis/kkk immigration illegal?
Ah so you are that special kind of dumbass.
Without a one world government that could police people cross border, wouldn’t it be all to easy walk in to a country, do a bit crime, and then walk to the next one? Not to mention human trafficking problems if no one was tracked how they travel across countries.
So you think every person on the planet should be tracked every time they cross any border anywhere?
I don’t. I would obviously like a world where border control wasn’t necessary for travel. And it’s obviously not an impossibility considering the schengen area exists. But I don’t see tracking influx of immigrants to be a bad thing, if anything so you know how many resources to budget for their care (in the case of refugees) and making sure people don’t go missing.
Knowing that the system as it is now is wrong does not make me an expert on how we could prevent issues. But some people being able to “do a bit of crime” easier is probably better than the human rights violations that are occurring now. And even otherwise, open borders doesn’t inherently mean nothing with no one checking people. Just means you can freely travel. But also, Europe doesn’t seem to have an issue of people popping cross the border to “do a bit of crime” and go home to get off scott free. Because that’s not how borders and laws work.
And human trafficking is a problem with the world as it is currently. So that’s not stopping anything. And hell, it makes “illegal” immigrants easier targets of this kind of exploitation. Can’t really get much help if you’re in the country illegally and your family member is kidnapped.
Every time I meet someone who opposes illegal immigration but claims to support legal immigration I ask one question. If the law changed so that all immigration was legal, you’d be fine with it, right?
Nobody so far has been fine with it. I conclude that the question of legality is a dodge for people who are embarrassed about their actual motives.
Oh my God the HEMMING and HAWING when suggesting easier immigration to one of these bigots.
They will do anything to avoid answering that question. It’s really disgusting
Does unrestricted immigration work?
I’m not aware that any country (that anyone would want to go to, not like a war zone) has completely free immigration. I’d be opposed to having no more borders from one day to the next for the simple reason that it’s a big change. One that’s worth trialing and working towards, of course, but not something we can yet know will work afaik. Especially if we’re the first country doing this and 2 billion people decide the Netherlands would be a fine place to live in (it is!). I’d not be surprised if it turns out we need a lottery kind of system, or maybe an announcement system, at least for those not in mortal danger, so that we can build living spaces ahead of time. Supply and demand is currently such that the only way to afford a house (even for top, idk, ~2% of world incomes) is to have a house so you can sell it at the inflated price, and while immigration is afaik a net positive to a country’s wealth and welfare, this effect is offset in time. The housing crisis will pass again, as it always has, but in general the solution should be sustainable and I’m not aware that it’s as simple as “be in favor of unrestricted immigration or else you’re a racist”
I support legal immigration, I empathize with illegal immigration (and think the laws could use adjustment in both directions)…but I don’t think all immigration should be legal.
And no, it doesn’t change if they’re from “a Western country” or from somewhere that people look different from the majority in my country.
We have rising unemployment among citizens, especially young people, yet corporations are taking advantage of immigrants in various ways. And immigrants of all kinds – legal, grey area, and illegal immigrants.
We are selling the idea of a lifestyle to people in other countries that isn’t attainable unless you’re part of the top quintile (or possibly an even smaller group) of income. Then they come here, bringing their university educations, and are competing for jobs against high schoolers.
I’m all about people coming to live in my country. But we’re doing a disservice to immigrants through our laws/regulations and our corporations. And people who are here illegally are usually the biggest victims; the most exploited.
I also would not be fine with it.
Having a barrier to entry is what keeps most of the dipshits out. There are dipshits in every country. I don’t want to have to deal with another country’s dipshits - we have enough to deal with on our own.
Exactly what the barriers to entry are should be reformed so that they make sense and allow all people in easily if they meet some straightforward requirements.
Borders have existed since paleolithic tribes staked out perimeters around their camps and established hunting territory boundaries with other tribes. Is it possible that we will someday live in a world completely free of restricted travel? Sure! But abolishing all barriers to entry across national boundaries tomorrow with a snap of the fingers would be a disaster.
keeps most of the dipshits out
Perhaps, but the undocumented immigrants being rounded up do not seem to be dipshits. Dreamers, day laborers, people here for the past 20 years with no criminal history. Keeping the dipshits out is a nice idea, but our current policies are evicting people I want as neighbors.
I agree. I think our current policies are dumb as fuck.
I think I understand what you’re saying and don’t necessarily fully disagree, but the directness at the very start definitely made me brace for xenophobia. In part because “dipshits” can be used as a dogwhistle
However, I would 100% classify trumpers as dipshits
but the directness at the very start definitely made me brace for xenophobia
Yeah, I mean, I was direct because I was disagreeing with them.
However, I would 100% classify trumpers as dipshits
I agree
No human is illegal
being a nazi should be illegal
deport musk
Not really, but the racist part is opposing measures making it achievable and even simple to do so legally. Then all the terrible treatment along the way.
Considering the high proportion of the population with ancestors who were illegal immigrants, there’s also a question of what you consider as acceptable.
If illegal immigrants in the US are all white Christian beautiful women filling jobs that locals don’t want to do in healthcare, is it different than Pedro from Honduras who works in construction but looks like he could be a drug mule.
OP did not mention the US.
No, but it is racist to assume that a person is an illegal immigrant based solely on their race.
Likewise, i think there is a deeper connection being made, that theres an assumption that an illegal immigrant is a bad person, and i also do not think that is a valid assumption.
To know if a person is a bad person, you have to know the person.
No, race doesn’t have anything to do with it.
If you oppose illegal immigration, though, you should ask yourself why.
If it’s solely that you don’t want people coming over to your nation illegally, then it’s very likely that they aren’t able to because of how complicated and exclusive your nation’s immigration system is.
Their mode of entry into the UK was illegal but any asylum claims they make will be assessed as being potentially valid. I think you were saying the same thing but not sure.
The reason people are particularly pissed off is that Farage and co. have framed the debate as an issue of fairness. Essentially the charge levelled at the irregular migrants is queue jumping, which we don’t look upon fondly in our culture.
On our side of the pond, it’s becoming more apparent how many ways immigrants can end up undocumented. Of course it’s always framed as drug cartel member sneaking over the border at night to rape the women, or whatever bs stereotypes they can use to frighten people, but
- sometimes it’s a college student who dropped out of school and didn’t leave
- sometimes it’s a tech worker who got laid off and hasn’t yet found another sponsor
- sometimes it’s someone struggling to do the right thing and missed something. Maybe a paperwork thing a decade ago
- sometimes it’s an ambush when they are doing the right thing
- sometimes they’re refugees from horrible circumstances.
- sometimes it’s someone just trying to work
- sometimes they’re just trying to live as a family when a cruel system would separate them
If your system, like ours, uses the worst stereotypes to scapegoat all undocumented aliens, deprives them of their rights, uses racial profiling to decide who to attack, “officers” hide their faces and identities and don’t even seem to know the laws they’re supposedly enforcing, use escalating violence for infractions that have always been civil issues, claim they’re deporting “the worst of the worst criminals” while setting ambushes at work sites and immigrant processing centers, then you too may be racist
We’re over here trying to set an example of what NOT to do, apparently.
There are genuine integration issues in the UK so the anti-migrant bloc do have some valid concerns. However, there will be a non-insignificant amount of racists among them.
Weirdly, the “skipping the queue” rhetoric even works with fellow migrants. I have a friend from Iran who I used to work with that moved to the UK ~3 years ago; he’s way angrier about irregular channel crossings than the average Scottish person I know. I’d imagine spending a lot of money and years on a waiting list before being given a work visa was a grating experience though.
It’s not racist to take issur with illegal immigration.
It’s just not right to oppose the immigrants as people, or say that their situation is the result of some moral failing. These people make the best decisions for themselves and their families.
It becomes racist when you start attributing characteristics or behaviors to their race as fundamental attributes.
It really depends on why you oppose them. There is no real answer to that question.
I am yet to hear a justification for opposing illegal immigration that doesn’t tie back into racism or racial prejudice, let alone a justification that actually makes sense if you take it apart.
Someone prove me wrong, and I’ll change my mind.
If you have a society with robust social welfare systems - education, healthcare, social security, pensions, childcare, housing etc. etc., mass immigration becomes a massive problem.
Everything is taken care of via taxes, and those taxes come from a productive working population. Slow population growth (whether from births or immigration) allows social institutions to expand at a matching rate over the decades.
Rapid population increases from migration can overwhelm the systems in place and put society in a spot where it is no longer able to maintain them.
Furthermore, when it comes to illegal immigrants, it gets doubly bad. They can’t hold down a legal job (at least in my country, and thus not pay taxes either), which inevitably pushes them towards crime or illegal jobs which brings a whole host of other issues.
Thanks for a thoughtful response. My thoughts:
- In most cases, illegal immigrants do not benefit from government welfare programs, but they do work and contribute to the economy positively.
- In cases where data has been collected, immigrant populations tend to put more into the economy than take through social programs, when compared with native populations. I can provide sources and data on this if you’d like.
- Illegal immigrants may often not pay income tax, but they do pay most other forms of taxes that still end up paying more into the system than they get back. I can also provide evidence on this if you’d like.
- If tax isn’t being collected from someone, when they’re willing to pay it, that is 100% the fault of anti-immigration policy, not an immigration issue.
Thanks for a well-written reply. Here’s some quick responses:
1… as mentioned the primary costs here come from increased crime which is hard to document. In high trust societies (which social welfare countries usually are) this has a disproportionately negative impact on the economy. Also, in several Scandinavian countries everyone has a right to emergency healthcare, regardless of their immigration status.
2… I believe you’re correct when it comes to countries with less social welfare such as the US, however, this isn’t the case in countries with robust social welfare systems. As recently as 2023 Denmark assessed the net contribution of migrants and their descendants on the public finances and published the results. The sum total effect of migrants was negative (-19B DKK). Per capita the average Dane had an impact of (22k DKK) per year and the average migrant (-21k DKK). Some migrant/migrant descendant subgroups were better or worse than others (best 52k DKK, worst -109k).
3… Sure, I assume this accounts for other societal costs such as law enforcement and crime?
4… See the response to #2. The taxes don’t cover the costs.
Thanks for your response. Your argument is convincing and I have no refutation, I appreciate you taking the time.
The only thing I would say is I bet this is still fixable with policy without having to ban or restrict immigration. But alas, that’s a different discussion, and your point that there are valid non racist reasons to criticize immigration is correct. Thanks again!
No worries. I think the more interesting discussion that I’d like to have at some point is how a good system for immigration actually looks. It’s not a trivial problem to solve and can’t be done in isolation either. Societies are systems where everything is interlinked in one way or another.
The thing is, if they are there illegally, they won’t be able to benefit from most of these welfare systems. And over straining welfare can also happen for a lot of different reasons (thank you neoliberalism)
I agree that there are legitimate reasons to manage immigration, but criminalizing the act is a complete no-go for me. There are other ways to manage immigration by creating incentives and disincentives that would make the criminalization of migrants unnecessary. I also believe that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right and that borders are nothing more than an authoritarian system of control. “Security” is only made necessary by the problems that nation-states create themselves by existing.
How would you limit immigration without creating laws and stopping people when too many arrive?
Freedom of movement is good in a vacuum but not feasible in our current world. The best would be if developed countries could uplift those that arent and the need for people to move would be reduced.
You’ve answered your own question, ending imperialism and colonialism so that unequal exchange doesn’t create massive wealth disparities between nations and war no longer displaces people en masse, thereby “uplifting” formerly exploited peoples, would remove most of the incentives for mass migration. In a world at peace with itself borders are not necessary. Ask yourself, why is there no need to criminalize immigration between states/provinces within a country such as the US? Because the US, for the time being, is a nation at peace with itself. It doesn’t have to be a perfect utopia - the US most certainly is not - to eliminate the need for border security / immigration control. Even a tenuous peace and a dubious justice is enough to eliminate the need for border enforcement.
Edit: This is a good write-up about how the criminalization of migrants does not even serve as an adequate deterrent to migration anyway. It is not only unjust, it’s futile.
Ok, so just wishful thinking then. The problem is we live in the present, not some utopian future.
Ask yourself, why is there no need to criminalize immigration between states/provinces within a country such as the US?
Now you’re just copying my comment and changing the timeframe lol.
Can you elaborate on how you think turning the world into a utopia would be achievable?
So clearly you didn’t fully read my comment, so why should I expend the effort typing out a response? It would be a waste if you’re just going to read part of it and then ask questions I’ve already given the answer to.
ask questions I’ve already given the answer to
You have given a vague idealistic vision, not an answer.
ending imperialism and colonialism
And how exactly would that happen? Id like you to elaborate if you have any ideas
I’ve heard a very compelling one actually. It’s not about ilegal immigration but against immigration in general. I heard it in a youtube talk maybe like a decade ago.
It starts stating that the thing a migrant person wants the most is not having to emigrate. No one wants go have to leave their country because they cannot safely live a prosper life there. So the best outcome would be that the origin countries would change, so people wouldn’t have leave everything behind to start a new life abroad. The problem is that the country have to change from inside. And the people leaving a country is usually the most qualified to make that change happen. So by leaving the country they make the change harder or even impossible.
I’m not arguing in favour or against this argument. But I do not think it has anything to do with race whatsoever. As it doesn’t even talk about anything related to migrant presence in a receiving country.
Thanks for your response! You are making an assumption that most or all immigrants wish they didn’t have to immigrate. I will answer assuming this is true, though I am not confident it is. But let’s go with it.
Changes in material conditions of a country typically occur due to political action. That may be in terms of voting, political movements, or outside forces like war or sanctions. Addressing each of those:
- Immigrants typically can still vote, so no issue here
- immigrants are unlikely to affect political movements when they are immigrating for reasons like work, study, reuniting with other family, or enjoying lifestyle of another country.
- Immigrants have little to no effect on wars and sanctions.
And last, even if what you quoted is true, I bet whoever said it is likely not considering putting the effort of making their country better in the same way they want immigrants to. Maybe that’s not one of the worse forms of racism, but it is one.
That’s a strawman. And some people are just hustlers and want money and handouts and see it as something they are entitled to.
But it boils down to “go back where they came from” which is the favourite of racists.
I mean if the axiom is “any negative about immigration is bad = racism” then yes, there’s no argument against immigration that could not be racist as those two concepts would be equivalent.
It’s just a lot of clever words for hating foreigners. I’m not fooled by it. Apparently you are. The solution to the infrastructure problems is to build more infrastructure. Not elect a bunch of racists and let hate rule your country. Who gives a fuck where people are from? Racists. That’s who. People are people.
The solution to the housing crisis is to build a vast amount of council housing, just like we did post war. It makes jobs. It boosts the economy. It removes the upwards pressure on rent and introduces downwards pressure. Who would pay through the nose for a badly maintained private rental property when there’s a brand now council house at much lower rent? Landlords would have to fix the house and reduce the rent or sell - reducing upwards pressure on house prices.
So it’s the government selling off council houses instead of building more and money-grabbing rich venture capital landlords that cause the housing problem, not some immigrant.
How do you solve the problems of the NHS? Recruit more doctors and nurses. How? Increase the limit on numbers in medical school in the UK (controlled by the government) and for goodness’ sake, make sure all the foreign born NHS and healthcare workers feel happy, wanted and at home, because the one think the NHS can’t afford is to lose the immigrant workers! Next, bring health and social care and NHS under the same funding roof, either by putting NHS into local authorities or social care under the NHS. Social care is far cheaper than the NHS and a bunch of old people can’t get a place in social care because there’s not enough funding for it. If it was the same pot of money, it’d be simple - build a bunch of care homes and ease pressure on the NHS. But how would you staff them? I think you’re beginning to see where the answers are but you don’t want to admit it.
Who gave you money problems? Rich people running corporations to extract as much money as possible from you. Not some poor immigrant.
Immigrants make our country better. Without them it would be worse. Silly racists can sound plausible without using the word “race” or “skin” or “foreigners” as much as they like but their solutions are just about racism and not about making anything better.
Trump is living out the “deport them or lock them up” policy. If you think that’s all going well, move to America. Unless your skin isn’t pearly white, because they’ll lock you up before you can say “ironic” and certainly before you can say “habeas corpus”.
I think being anti-all-immigration is xenophobic. But it’s completely different from being anti illegal immigration or wanting to, for example, stop the immigration of people in certain job markets to help the country’s nationals to get jobs.
What I say is:
“It’s better to bring in 100,000 immigrants who want to fill needed gaps in our society, contribute, build it up and create more jobs, than 10,000 immigrants who just want handouts”
I have some fantastic news for you. For some time now, if you enter the UK via an illegal route you already have No Recourse To Public Funds. This means you can’t get council housing, you can’t get universal credit, you can’t get child credit and you’re not entitled to free treatment in the NHS. You have to pay for everything yourself.
Why would anyone do that? Ignorance maybe, but usually because it’s better than being killed and they already speak some English or have family here.
The last job you got-did you have to supply identity papers such as drivers licence, passport or similar? Employers legality have to establish your right to work in the UK.
So the his news for you is there’s already no legal way for illegal immigrants to be paid anything at all in the UK. Automatically destitute. Woohoo. You must be so proud.
simply because somebody who you disagree with says something, doesn’t mean that that argument is bad.
it’s like if a nazi says that the sky is blue, then you’re going to insist that it’s actually green or yellow. that’s just stupid.
nazis breathe too. does that make breathing bad? no, you need to agree with it and continue to breathe yourself.
Yeah, but if a Nazi says we should send all the immigrants home, I see it for the racist shit it is.
That’s not what this discussion is about, though. It’s about illegal immigrants. Not immigrants in general.
It wasn’t me that changed the subject
It’s not race based, but there are cultures that are less developed and may not blend well with other cultures.
This even happens with the likes of white American tourists in Japan… Or anywhere for that matter. Even in the UK and Ireland, where they are likely the same ethnicity (I know because they never bleedin shut up about it)
For example, in some places, if something is given out for free, it may be normal to take as much advantage of it as possible. Or honesty shops- it might be seen as justified to take advantage of the shop owner because they didn’t properly put a guard up, in their eyes, so were “asking for it”. The latter attitude can also at times happen towards women and how they dress.
Essentially this. There are no arguments against immigration that arent racist or xenophobic.
Immigration and illegal immigration are two different subjects.
Wouldn’t arguing against immigration be xenophobic by default?
I think there are arguments for certain cultural backgrounds where standards or view on morality might be different. Or worldview. So they aren’t necessarily all racist
What is your argument? Please explain these moral differences based on culture. Could you provide an example?
What. Are. Your. Arguments?
Put them into words. Dont send me a video.
You asked for an example
