Swede here, absolutely not, around 2015 or so we got hit by the mass migration wave, there were plenty of documented cases of migrants throwing away or destroying their documents to try and claim refugee status when they clearly didn’t need it, thus taking spots from actual refugees.
There were also real refugees who did this, they registered in Greece, Spain, Italy or other southern Europe country, but then they kept going north, trying to get to a better country. At that point you are no longer a refugee, but an economic migrant.
I 100% oppose these migrants.
The dumb thing is that the EU would distribute refugees throughout the union, just because you registered in Spain, didn’t mean you had to stay there, you would stay for an interim period and be distributed to your proper host country.
I have zero issues with migrants/refugees who come the legal route, learn the language, work, and integrate in the culture.
Why did the immigrants feel the need to do that?
If you’re just going to say greed then I can’t take you seriously, since greed would have moved them far sooner.Maybe there are problems with the immigration system
If you are just going to reject one of the biggest driving forces of human beings, then you don’t want a serious discussion.
Greed is absolutely part of it, people want to maximize their gains, be it money, health, security or resources.
But since you don’t accept that answer, what is your explanation for a refugee that keeps walking through safe country after safe country before finally finding the specific country they accept?
Why should refugees get to pick and choose a specific EU country to live in?
Why would legitimate refugees’s discard their papers?
I didn’t say greed can’t be part of it, but anti immigration folks position it as the primary or significant motivator, but:
If they were primarily motivated by greed, the would have immigrated long ago.
And their objection seems to be primarily motivated by greed, the want more and they perceive that immigrants will prevent them from getting more. So why is their greed ok but immigrant greed isn’t?What is my explanation? I don’t need one, you’re the one saying it’s greed, it’s up to you to prove that I’m the face of an entirely reasonable counterargument.
But I’ll give you one anyways - their looking for a place that they can belong, which isn’t necessarily going to be the first place they arrive. They’re looking for the ability to support their family, which isn’t greed.
Why shouldn’t refugees get to pick what country they move to, like any EU citizen can?Why would legitimate refugees discard their papers? You tell me, why would having papers be worse than not having papers? That practically screams that something is either very wrong with the system, or that this is simply a dishonest claim.
I feel like if you’re asking then you’re searching for validation. A sort of way to not feel guilty about being racist. Tell me, what bothers you most about immigrants? This country wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for immigrants
What “this country”? Lemmy?
And I understand them searching for validation. It might be hard being anti-illegal-immigrant and everyone thinking you racist, even though your reasons are not racist nor xenophobic at all.
You just encountered US defaultism
My issue with them is their existence.
If I had things my way, legal immigration would be easy and fast. This would eliminate the need for people from a starving company to sneak across the border
No. And I am tired of people assuming I’m racist for not wanting idiots coming over in small boats from france
While I don’t know your racial euphemisms, “small boats” raises red flags. Maybe it’s not racist, but ….
How is describing the size of a boat racist
Like I said, I don’t know your euphemisms and usage, but ……
It’s racist when we mean those people. They’re all criminals and druggies and queue jumpers. And you know they’re mostly x. Not like the good ones from Scandinavia that fly in. Those are not the problem.
It reminds me of a term we have here: wetbacks. There are still some idiots who try to claim it’s just descriptive of people who swam across the rio grande river. But we all know it’s those people from south of the border with the darker skin. They’re all illegal, drug smugglers, will rob and rape and steal our jobs. And somehow use up our healthcare and social security that they can’t collect. Even if there was a chance it was descriptive in the beginning, it’s clearly racist and it’s clearly exploited by our Regressives to drive fear and outrage. If there’s anyone who still supports the abuses of our current immigration enforcement thugs it’s because of how successfully that term has been demonized
And this is why allowing people like Charlie Kirk is dangerous. We’re used to saying that people have a right to voice their opinions but the modern world has made it easy to influence millions with the most abhorrent opinions and to escape consequences of voicing them. The modern world rewards with success those who exploit divisiveness, outrage, haired, and we haven’t been able to get past that. He shouldn’t have been shot but in an ideal world would have been shunned and exiled, left alone in ignomy
Difference is that mexico has cartels and stuff. France doesn’t. Stop trying to apply your American logic over on us. The Chinese have a term for this. “A frog in a well”. Except maybe you lot are more obnoxious than that anyway. Deal with your own problems and stop trying to poke your nose in others, imperialist yank. Your country has caused enough problems on the world stage. A number of weeks ago one of your racist billionaires was trying to meddle with our society by making speeches in London. We don’t want anything to do with you lot.
You’d have to be pretty desperate to do something like that.
Would bigger boats help?
Size doesn’t matter. As long as they get their passports checked
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
It really depends on why you oppose them. There is no real answer to that question.
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
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
yes
No.
You just don’t want illegal immigrants. Forget skin color for a second, you could still have an illegal white immigrant and still oppose them.
It just happens to be that a majority of immigrants are not white, and that’s the crux of the issue imo
look how many words they need to mimick a fraction of our conference
The term is a little racist. It is like defining someone as an excon, or ex convict, rather than someone who has spent time in prison. Or as disabled rather than a person with a disability. You define people as a simple thing rather than as a whole person with a feature. It flattens people into less than they are and makes them less than human.
So opposing people who flaunt the rules is a separate question to opposing illegal immigrants. You don’t dismiss their humanity, you don’t discard them, you say “You breeched the rules and here are the consequences.”
The second layer is whether you believe in the rules. Do you believe people from other countries are fundamentally different to you? Are they less because of where they come from? If so, yes, racist. If not, then probably not.
Yes because this is all land stolen by illegals. Assuming you’re in North America. Canada and United States both literally illegally migrated here. No excuse or logic that would make sense that others shouldnt do the same. The end.
No.
What a weird question.
In chess, it is perfectly acceptable to play opposite of illegal immigrants and not racist at all. Why would you think that?
Usually, yes
Because usually the reason they have to be illegal is racist, and the person complaining about illegal immigration is fine with it.Where are you coming from with “the reason they have to be illegal is racist”? If you wouldn’t mind clarifying.
Nothing makes you more racist than having a legal alibi to hide your racism.
This question reeks of asking if keeping slaves when they were “legal” racist? If it’s legal, what’s the big deal?
