> Your point is straight-up bonkers and the data you yourself cite disproves it. Ad hominems isn't an argument. > Comparing the UAE (one country, an outlier a

> Your point is straight-up bonkers and the data you yourself cite disproves it. Ad hominems isn't an argument. > Comparing the UAE (one country, an outlier at that, due to their subsidized incentives) to the collective immigration to Australia + USA + Western Europe + Japan + South Korea is beyond disingenuous. I wrote the middle east, not the UAE. Very curious. So you are being disingenuous here by misrepresenting my claim. The wealthy countries of the middle east - uae, saudi arabia, kuwait, qatar, etc have more immigration per capita than the US and any country in europe. Why are you including Japan and South Korea when both are highly averse to immigration and are not part of 'the west'? > You know who destabilized my country? The USSR. What country is that? It's a good thing the USSR is gone then. Maybe the same should happen to 'the west'? Are you saying it's okay for 'the west' to destabilize countries but not the USSR? I don't even know what your point is here. > Boy am I glad to be an American and I wouldn't give up my citizenship for anything. Why would you? Did I say you should? > I'll gladly pay taxes even if end up living elsewhere. What? Go ahead. It's like you build up a strawman on top of a strawman and got confused along the way. All I'm saying is people immigrate to 'the west' for the same reason they immigrate to the middle east. For money and economic opportunities. Like you and everyone else did. Take australia. The biggest immigrant group in australia is the british. Do you think the british moved to australia for 'classical liberalism' and 'western values'?