Immigration We're spending 90% of resources on 5% of refugees 10% of resources on 95% of refugees

[LeBrok]

No, according to my university level Environmental Issues class, we are not going to be doing very well in the next 60 years.

My point was that you, being a pessimist, only concentrate on negative aspects of the issues. Are you able to list the positive effects on environment? Keep in mind that people are also part of environment.

Only solution is to nationalize, and put Americans first, even if it means valuing 1 life over another.

Take some economic classes too. You are confusing two different things there. Nationalization doesn't mean the same as America First. Nationalization means that government owns and run companies. Government nationalizes businesses, it acquires businesses from privately own hands or corporations and make them own by government (all the people, in theory). Like in Socialist or Communist economic systems. If you support of nationalization, it would mean that you support socialistic model of economy. If you do indeed, your rant about "leftists" being bad, is baseless.
What Trump means by America First is that, he will protect American companies, based on American soil, from foreign competition. And he is against American Companies to leave American Soil. He wants to protect American business in America, but has no plans nationalizing them. His plan is called protectionism.
Furthermore, could you give a good example of protectionism working good for any nation in a long run.

The food is all processed shit now, water is going to be scarce in places like the mid west, and maybe no one saw this coming 150 years ago before the Industrial Revolution, but that does not mean out current path is correct, or cannot be changed.

I agree that lots of food is of bad quality. I myself pay extra for good quality organic food. It taste much better and it has better nutrient value. Just keep in mind that even though much of food sold in US is not the best quality, there is plenty of it, and it is a better situation than having only good food but not enough and starving population. With time and population getting better off, the food quality will only improve. People demand sets environment for what market should supply. There is also a room for education. Half of Americans eat tons of junk food and too much of it, getting fatter and fatter. For the same money you can buy organic food in half of volume they consume. Enough to eat well, be healthier and slimmer for the same money.

 

[Minty]

This is the same situation when Europe and especially America where embarking on huge projects such as rail way buildings and other huge infrastructural projects. The projects used to take many years to accomplish and where manned by many people from all around the empires (as it benefits low wages and so on) Probably these people were married and had children in these countries. This is the same pattern as used to happen in classical eras with big urban centers with high economic activity such as ancient Egypt, Babylon and Rome for example. Today we have New York and London. Maybe Dubai and gulf states have a better recruitment policy to avoid challenges with future integration? even though they have a very bad reputation in regards to subhuman conditions where they specifically hire people to do the particular job without ever giving a residence permit. Even though some of their populations are now outnumbered by 'Foreigners' and has been like that for a good number of years. Then there is the Chinese model, where it practically has Zero immigration and the cheap work force is widely available from people in the countryside. I am not sure which Model works for Europe.

You need to stop talking like you know East Asians well. I don't think you do. There are immigrants in China, I admit not as many as Europe, America, Australia, Canada or New Zealand.

The top five countries of origin were the Republic of Korea (ROK), the United States, Japan, Burma, and Vietnam. Even as immigration is rising, immigrants represent a tiny fraction of the country's population of 1.35 billion. China's economic benefits from immigration are indisputable.


There are even Palestinian communities in China.

http://www.mei.edu/content/map/among-old-friends-history-palestinian-community-china

I saw a documentary about Palestinians in China, but I don't remember where. I think it was a SBS documentary. The people interviewed said that they feel safer in China than in Palestine. They sell carpet for a living.

Return of Overseas Chinese
The only significant immigration to China has been by the Overseas Chinese, who in the years since 1949 have been offered various enticements to return to their homeland. Several million may have done so since 1949. The largest influx came in 1978–79, when about 160,000 to 250,000 ethnic Chinese refugees fled Vietnam for southern China, as relations between the two countries worsened. Many of these refugees were settled in state farms on Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

North Koreans in China

Another activity viewed as illegal is the influx of North Koreans into northeastern China. Some 1,850 North Koreans fled their country in 2004, but China views them as illegal economic migrants rather than refugees and sends many of them back. This is also due to pressure from North Korea. Many of those who succeed in reaching sanctuary in foreign diplomatic compounds or international schools have been allowed by China to depart for South Korea.

Africans in Guangzhou

Africans in Guangzhou are a sizeable community of black Africans primarily concentrated in Guangzhou, China. Since the country's late 1990s economic boom, thousands of African traders and businesspeople predominantly from West Africa migrated to the city of Guangzhou, creating an "Africatown" in the middle of the southern Chinese metropolis of approximately 10 km2. The primarily male population often set up local businesses and also engage in international trade.

According to official statistics of the PRC government, the number of Africans in Guangzhou has increased by 30-40% each year, and now form the largest black community in Asia. However, as many have overstayed their visas, official figures may be understated. Estimates vary on the number of Africans living in Guangzhou: from 20,000 to over 200,000. This has led to controversies and anger by the local community due to rumors of increasing amount of crimes, including rape, fraud, robberies and drug dealing committed by Africans. Huang Shiding of the Guangzhou Institute of Social Sciences estimates the number of permanent residents of foreign nationality (six months and above) to be around 50,000, of which some 20,000 are of African origin.

Take a look at this:

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/...mmigrants-challenges-chinas-migration-policy/



Everybody is saying that how westernised Japanese are. Well I don't think they want any immigrants at all.

The country has remained relatively closed to foreigners, who make up only 2% of the population of 127m, compared with an average of 12% in the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries.

The no-immigration principle is an institutionalization of the homogeneous-people discourse. The principle basically states that Japan does not accept migrants. Indeed, the M-word (imin in Japanese) is markedly absent in legal, media and popular discourse, where it is replaced by euphemisms such as “entrants” and “foreign workers.” On the policy side, this means that it is necessary to do as much as possible to prevent foreigners in general from staying long or settling down. Tessa Morris-Suzuki argues that this principle has remained relatively unchanged since the first Nationality Law of 1899, which aimed to a) prevent an influx of unskilled labor, and b) restrict access to Japanese nationality.

 

[DuPidh]

I don't know who ever thought that, but it must be some politicians who don't have a clue about how the economy works and how it is going to evolve with new technologies (AI, robots). Freshly arrived refugees are always an economic burden because they need years to integrate, learn the local language, etc. before they can hope to start working and pay taxes. But that's in the best case scenario in which refugees are skilled and educated, which is almost never the case. Even the small percentages that could have the right skills will need to find jobs available, when the current trend is to lay off staff and automate jobs as much as possible. The Dutch ING Group, which according to Wikipedia was the world's largest banking/financial services and insurance conglomerate in 2012, has recently decided to cut one third of the staff in the Netherlands and Belgium, which they will replace by elaborate AI programmes. This is just the beginning. Almost all jobs will be automatable within 20 years, well before the majority of those refugees are fully integrated. Therefore they will never contribute anything economically substantial to their host countries and will in the meantime be a huge burden on the already strained public finances. Taxes will have to be raised further to finance their accommodation, food and integration courses. And that is again in the best case scenario, if thousands of these refugees don't commit crimes or terrorist attacks. As I have said before, even if only 0.1% of the refugees are hard-core Muslims that could turn into terrorists, out of 1 million+ refugees, that is still 1000 terrorists. It only took 3 terrorists to conduct the attacks in the airport and metro in Brussels. Imagine how much damage can 1000 terrorists cause. So even if 99.9% of refugees were the perfect kind of immigrants, who can pick up their host country's language in a few months, behave like perfectly upright citizens, are highly skilled in sought-after jobs, integrate easily within the fibre of their host society, and so on, but the 0.1% are terrorists, that is still 0.1% too much. And anyway everybody knows that there isn't any country in the world that can provide 99.9%, or even 50% of "perfect" immigrants if taken at random in the population. And of all countries, relatively poor and predominantly Muslim countries are least likely to provide the right type of immigrants for European society.[/QUOTe

The whole thing of refugee stuff is a left-wing strategy to engineer the human race according to their believes. Refugees are a burden to the host country and unless the refugees are the same race as the local population their assimilation could take thousands of years. For example gypsies have been for 600 years in Europe and their mixing with local populations is minimal. The refugees can be dealt better in their own countries through helping them financially. The automation is advancing with rapid pace but there is another thing: A lot of products have reached maturity which means there is not much to do about the spoon let say,so a lot of those jobs which dont need any major innovations are leaving the industrialized countries so the number of jobs is always down.

 

[SoloWarrior]

As they say just my 2c worth. I just returned from Sweden and I am not under the impression that all the jobs there need some huge skills and high level of Education. I have seen migrants working in Supermarkets filling shelves, cleaning toilets in airports, rail way stations, delivering furniture and so on. I am presuming that others do many low skilled jobs. I don't think in current situation there are any robots to do such work and its work that needs to be done if the economic wheel needs to keep on spinning. I am not demeaning these type of jobs as they are necessary for any society and it would be a disaster if people are not found to do these jobs. So one needs to see the whole picture. I know clearly locally that many sectors have a problem of finding people to work example in Restaurants, Hotels (Catering in general), same in cleansing departments and also hospitals and constrution. If locals are not found to do these jobs what is supposed to be done?

There's a difference between migrant & "refugees". Kindly don't insult legitimate migrants who actually come to a country attempting to better themselves versus so-called "refugees" who attempt to get into "cash cow" welfare countries.

Where I live in Canada a growing number of "refugees" are viewed with contempt even by people of their own ethnicity because they, by and large, sit & get fat on welfare. A colleague of mine, African, has complained many times about the African "refugees" seen sitting around doing nothing but smoking, drinking & getting stoned.

The average person around here who does those basic jobs aren't refugees. I have seen Bulgarians, Serbians, Poles, etc. delivering furniture. I have seen Philipines, Chinese, Indians, etc. cleaning toilets, filling shelves, etc. They are legitimate migrants who came here trying for a better life. The average "refugee" arriving appears to have picked the welfare system - it is no secret that there are "refugees" who apply & reapply to get certain countries - not surprising as I've encountered generational [2-3 generations] families sitting "plump" on tax payers money.