3 ms·

If India had 25% white EU members similar to Sweden having 25% migration background members (mostly from Africa or the Middle East), perhaps Indians would get a

If India had 25% white EU members similar to Sweden having 25% migration background members (mostly from Africa or the Middle East), perhaps Indians would get a tiny bit protectionist. The accusation that locals are reluctant to share resources is offensive at this point. There is no space and people can barely afford to pay rents. Meanwhile there are "golden visas" to Portugal or Cyprus where rich Chinese can gain entry to the EU and buy up everything. For a token "investment" like buying stocks to the tune of EUR 1,000,000. They do not exactly build a semiconductor fab. Again the myth that "foreigners are more productive". Where does that come from? West Germany did just fine before 1990, everything deteriorated since then.

JambalayaJimbo 2y ago
What does whiteness have to do with anything?? Indians are protectionist, with regards to immigration from poorer countries like Bangladesh.
- rednafi 2y ago
  Umm what? India has a lower per capita income and worse quality of life than Bangladesh. https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/bangladesh/india?sc=XE34 https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/bangladesh/indi...
rednafi 2y ago
I completely understand the need for protectionism. That said, Sweden's immigration policy ranks among the worst in Western countries. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any pushback; rather, my point is that these policies are exploitative on both ends. Why bring in refugees in the first place? And if you do, why bring them in en masse? The US handles a much larger number of migrants each year and consistently attracts the cream of the crop. I'm not saying the US doesn’t have issues with migrants, but during my time living there, I didn’t find the situation as severe as in Germany, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, or Italy. Europe's immigration policy is broken. Many immigrants end up draining the social welfare system, overcrowding service providers, and causing religious tensions. But let’s be honest: everyone knows which group is primarily responsible. It’s extremely difficult for that group to enter the US. At the same time, it’s much easier—though still not trivial—for skilled migrants to move there. In Germany, the situation is the opposite: it’s trivial to enter as a charity case but much harder as a skilled migrant. If you can afford to reject immigration, you're free to do so. America can’t, and they’re profiting from it. But why adopt such a self-sabotaging approach, bringing in the worst of the crop and then blaming them for the country’s woes? That’s the part I can’t understand.

JambalayaJimbo 2y ago

What does whiteness have to do with anything?? Indians are protectionist, with regards to immigration from poorer countries like Bangladesh.

rednafi 2y ago
Umm what? India has a lower per capita income and worse quality of life than Bangladesh. https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/bangladesh/india?sc=XE34 https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/bangladesh/indi...

rednafi 2y ago

I completely understand the need for protectionism. That said, Sweden's immigration policy ranks among the worst in Western countries. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any pushback; rather, my point is that these policies are exploitative on both ends. Why bring in refugees in the first place? And if you do, why bring them in en masse? The US handles a much larger number of migrants each year and consistently attracts the cream of the crop. I'm not saying the US doesn’t have issues with migrants, but during my time living there, I didn’t find the situation as severe as in Germany, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, or Italy. Europe's immigration policy is broken. Many immigrants end up draining the social welfare system, overcrowding service providers, and causing religious tensions. But let’s be honest: everyone knows which group is primarily responsible. It’s extremely difficult for that group to enter the US. At the same time, it’s much easier—though still not trivial—for skilled migrants to move there. In Germany, the situation is the opposite: it’s trivial to enter as a charity case but much harder as a skilled migrant. If you can afford to reject immigration, you're free to do so. America can’t, and they’re profiting from it. But why adopt such a self-sabotaging approach, bringing in the worst of the crop and then blaming them for the country’s woes? That’s the part I can’t understand.