If immigrants are so good for a country, why couldn't they do anything good to help the situation in their home country?

Because most "immigrants" are coming from active warzones.

In Köln, many women were fondled (happens every day in Japan and other "civilised" countries) and many raped, but none died. This is a small happening.

A small happening indeed! A small happening that they were only fondled and raped! None died, this proves the refugees are peaceful!

Also, it's only humanitarian to help another human if he has fell down.

Ah and how humanitarian were the attacks in Paris, carried out by some of these 'refugees'?

You can sit on your moral high ground, whine about 'humanitarianism' and feel good about yourself, but what have you actually done to help these refugees yourself? Have you offered your own house or food for refugees? You seem to think countries can draw up imaginary resources out of nowhere to help and shelter the influx of thousands of people!

@Xpapy
How does the part where we could take 18 million each year and still do nothing not mean anything to you? We need to solve root issues, not symptoms.

Edited 4/13/2016 15:07:10

I love immigrants

@pulsey most of the terrorists in the paris and brussels attacks had a european passport and some of them were born in europe, they werent immigrants

Gods, what. First of all:

This isn't the first time you have said "Gods". I am very interested what polytheistic religion you adhere to.

Edited 4/13/2016 18:59:11

Only thing i will ever say about a topic like that on the warlight forums:

Everything the extremists want is spread the hate. Mainly against not-yet-extreme moslems. They get no friends and are trough weak social contacts easy victims for terrorist recruiters.

Don't hate innocents.

This isn't the first time you have said "Gods". I am very interested what polytheistic religion you adhere to.

+1 Ox. Xpapy needs to reveal what polytheistic religion he's in. It's very, very curious.

If immigrants are so good for a country, why couldn't they do anything good to help the situation in their home country?

They usually do, but they want to move for whatever grounds. Job calls for it, wanting a site with less crime, something like that. Fine with me, let them help your country.

A small happening indeed! A small happening that they were only fondled and raped! None died, this proves the refugees are peaceful!

Noone died, this is a small happening in my opinion. Many were greatly annoyed, to say the least, but the count of folk who were physically injured was 3, the rest, it was just an illegal doing, but noone got hurt, noone's lives are in peril. It's important to put things to scale. In Lahor, 75+ folk lost their lives, 300+ injured, and here you are talking about Köln where not even 5 folk were injured.

Ah and how humanitarian were the attacks in Paris, carried out by some of these 'refugees'?

As I said earlier, immigrants more often than not have lower crime rates than nativities. How about the 800 others murdered in France that year, almost wholly by native French?

You can sit on your moral high ground, whine about 'humanitarianism' and feel good about yourself, but what have you actually done to help these refugees yourself? Have you offered your own house or food for refugees? You seem to think countries can draw up imaginary resources out of nowhere to help and shelter the influx of thousands of people!

I greatly value human life, yes. So if that's moral high ground, the world truly has become quite a disgusting site. Also, what I do is irrelevant to the argument, but I don't think - I know. The great majority of studies on the top show that immigration brings economic growth, along with other good things. But let's assume that even they don't, and take a few countries along with average GHP, and see how much they can take in while keeping the average tenfold above the World Bank poverty line of 694 $/year, and assuming each immigrant takes net 694 $ each year (even though that's, again, hardly is shown to happen).

America alone would be able to take in 22 thousand million leeches alone, more than Earth's population.

How does the part where we could take 18 million each year and still do nothing not mean anything to you? We need to solve root issues, not symptoms.

Why stop at 18 million? That bloke had nothing to back up his claim that somehow taking away immigrants makes more, or that America would, oh boy, collapse, if they did something as radic as taking in as much as 2 million immigrants each year. Just take in all 800 million.

I don't think there's enough food, land or water available for that many right now. There definitely could be , if we started growing crops in our yards instead of grass, and adopted a higher population density though.

Importing food is easy enough, if America really could not grow more. Taiwan gets by with 704 folk for every km^2 of farmland, America has 32 folk for every km^2 of farmland.

"Just take in all 800 million"

Are you freaking serious? That's double the current population. Growth like that in such a short amount of time is not sustainable in the slightest.

Not to mention with the current attitudes towards immigration you're just asking for civil rebelliousness to go haywire.

Are you freaking serious? That's double the current population. Growth like that in such a short amount of time is not sustainable in the slightest.

Not to mention with the current attitudes towards immigration you're just asking for civil rebelliousness to go haywire.

Why do you think so, when all what it seems is not. America, assuming it takes in 800 million immigrants that leech off 649$ each year (though usually the opposite happens), the average native income would lower from 54,370 $ to 52,760 $. That's naught. The population density for each farmland would grow from 179 to 623, about as much as Austria (598) or Portugal (665), far less than some countries like Japan and Hanguk.

I'd love it if somebody came up with a plan to take in 800 million Immigrants.


You wouldn't see another Democratic President in three decades, at least. And Donald Trump would become a serious candidate when Fascism suddenly becomes mainstream again.

Fascism is present in some countries. There's a fascist party in Slovakia, for instance.

Also, what I do is irrelevant to the argument, but

No, it is very relevant, and this is what I mean by the moral high ground. You are unwilling/ unable to devote your own resources to housing these refugees and yet you demand other countries and other people open up their borders, put their national security to risk and spend their limited resources, limited tax revenue on providing for millions and thousands of people. You sit on your moral high ground yelling at others to take action, and yet you are unwilling to contribute to the effort yourself! You philosophically declare that 'it' s only humanitarian to help another human when he has fell down', and yet how humanitarian have you actually been?

Edited 4/14/2016 06:34:49

800 million would simply be idiocy. Where would the jobs and resources come from? I am no longer willing to argue you on immigration; it is clear you are an idiot.

Well we could Americanize them easily enough, and we could compete with China militarily. And taking away the minimum wage, factories could come over and produce over here now that we have insane amounts of cheap labor.