4 ms·
Immigration at that scale is completely indistinguishable from invasion. At small scales you can have them give up their culture and assimilate but at replacem
by msgodel 1y ago
Immigration at that scale is completely indistinguishable from invasion.
At small scales you can have them give up their culture and assimilate but at replacement scales you just turn your country into a third world country. That's completely unacceptable.
- mothballed 1y agoDubai has managed to not let that happen even at rates far faster than replacement, but they don't give their immigrants voting rights, and usually not permanent residence (unless they are rich).
- msgodel 1y agoRight the only way to actually use immigration that way is essentially slaves and that has other economic (not to mention horrible moral) problems.
- mothballed 1y agoThey definitely have literal slaves there, as well as the highest per capita rate of influx of high-net-worth individuals of anywhere in the world, and then a lot of people in-between.
- unsnap_biceps 1y agoinvasion is forced upon the receiving country and immigration is controlled by the receiving country. They are not the same thing at all
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoImmigration is easily distinguishable from invasion, by anybody who understands the concept of consent. One is invited, the other is unwanted.
- mathiaspoint 1y agoI'm not sure there's a single Western country that wanted the kind of immigration it's getting. Many of them like Sweden seem like slow motion wars complete with an average two bombings per day. Other places like the UK have mass rapes, in the US everyone just quietly circles the wagons and stops socializing, in Canada pretty much every public service is suddenly unavailable and there are no jobs etc. No one wanted or invited any of that.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoI'm in the US, and I'm honestly not sure what connection you are trying to draw between immigration and socializing.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]