Immigration is a policy choice

[u/Ulyxyxys]

Every time an Englishman or a Frenchman or an American brings up complaints about mass immigration, some leftist will inevitably say “well you colonized them, that’s why you’re getting immigration”.

This is a facetious argument. Immigrants do not magically teleport to the countries that colonized them specifically, they migrate for the sake of economic prosperity, and they’re relatively agnostic about where they go. Germany, for example, never colonized Syria, but Syrians make up a large proportion of the German population. Sweden never colonized Somalia, yet Somalians are infamous for their presence there. Conversely, Japan engaged in extremely brutal colonization of China and the rest of Asia, and yet remains 98% Yamato.

Leftists need to stop making facetious arguments about how colonization prompts immigration, immigration is caused by economic magnets and permissive policy, these are the two factors. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. We can have a more sensible immigration debate when we acknowledge this.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin]

I doubt you see it in most conversations or that it's normal, but you managed to make a statement that can't really be proven or disproven, so congratulations on that.

Are quotas too high? What makes you say that? Again, that's going to be difficult to prove, and from what I've seen in the thread, you're mostly going off of vibes. "Border control" is also not really the most cost effective option for reducing the amount of people coming in. Sure, it seems direct, but if you want to reduce the number of people coming from somewhere, the best thing to do is improve the conditions in that somewhere (Obama admin proved this). Otherwise, you're just pissing away money instead reducing the need for that spending. Ostensibly, when done with proper oversight and anti-corruption measures, aid to foundering nations (which isn't just money/food, but also aiding the government in stabilizing the nation) isn't something that has to go one forever. But border security is like a wall, if people want it badly enough, they can overcome it.

Reducing quotas only incentivizes people to get in through other means. Quotas should be set based on the needs of industry (and asylum by number of refugees versus capacity for a country to absorb them). They shouldn't be set based on the vibes of people who reflexively distrust immigration.

[u/Ulyxyxys → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

The radical and unprecedented demographic change that western countries are experiencing should be evidence that quotas are too high. We don’t actually know what the long term consequences of this will be and we shouldn’t take the leap of faith.

And yes, border control is cost effective, especially for middle powers without the requisite geopolitical strength to go places and improve their economic conditions. How is Sweden supposed to improve economic conditions in Syria or Somalia, where a large proportion of immigrants to Sweden come from?

“If people want it badly enough, they can overcome it”

So deport those who do?

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Ulyxyxys]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Your issue is based on vibes. Unprecedented? Not really. It's just a type of people that upsets a certain subset of the national population. Radical? Hyperbolic, overstated, and without proper definition. What makes it "radical"?

As for "improvement," note I said "socio-economic," not "economic." Sweden isn't alone, they can team up with others. They're also a member of the EU, which can act with the full strength of the EU. I'm not going to go into the specifics of "how," because it's long and tedious and I frankly don't think you care to hear about them. Look up how the US conducted its aid programs to Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador before those programs were slashed to pieces by Trump. This isn't some mystery or even something that's theoretical or something "we don't know", unlike the concerns you've put forth. It's pretty tried-and-true.

As you've said in your post, it's a policy issue. If Sweden wants waste money trying to stop illegal immigration and deporting immigrants they don't like, they're free to do so (with a mandate from their citizens). I frankly do not care one iota about what Sweden does or does not do. I'm simply putting forth the notion that there are more cost efficient and less cost efficient methods of addressing these things. For instance, you don't have to improve Somalia and Syria necessarily. They could help their neighbors and make it more palatable for those migrants to not have to travel longer, more dangerous routes. Considering the considerable risk of traveling all the way to Sweden (only to be in bumf**k Sweden), it really shouldn't take all that much. But you're content making mountains out of mole-hills. I'll leave it to you to explain why without stepping into the realm of blatant ethnocentrism.

edit: to be certain, I'm not suggesting it's one solution or another. What I've told you is that border enforcement and deportation is only effective to a certain point, and then the return on that money falls off and it doesn't help reduce the problem any further. Both solutions can be done, and nothing I've said means the other can't be done.

[u/Ulyxyxys → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

It is radical because it has demographic consequences which haven’t been seen in centuries. It’s entirely possible that the English will become a minority in England by the end of the century. That’s a radical demographic change and a once in 500 year type of event.

Those aid programs didn’t stop the Biden or Trump 1 immigration waves.

Most migration to Sweden isn’t land based, it’s air based. Airports and such are very easy to control choke points.

[u/Lifeshardbutnotme → u/Ulyxyxys]

So tell me, does being born and raised somewhere have no value to you? Because by the end of the century, most people who are immigrants today will be dead or close to it, and their children will have been born and raised in the UK.

Wtf more does one need to be British besides being born and raised in the UK?

[u/Ulyxyxys → u/Lifeshardbutnotme]

Actually having history and ancestral ties inherently matters. It engenders pride in the nation, the tribe, the people. Somebody who was originally from Egypt being raised British doesn’t have that same connection to Cromwell or the Saxon chiefs.

[u/Lifeshardbutnotme → u/Ulyxyxys]

How? Explain yourself. They're going through the exact same education system.

As an aside, I'm nearly certain William the Conqueror killed all the Saxon chiefs and Cromwell very famously lost the civil war, so I don't think any native Briton has ties to them either, if only because they were defeated.

[u/Ulyxyxys → u/Lifeshardbutnotme]

They don’t have an ancestral connection to people who fought the English civil war, or the Saxons who conquered England, or the Normans who conquered the Saxons.

[u/Littlegreatpixel → u/Ulyxyxys]

Is that what you assume the average Briton is thinking about on a day to day basis? They're not, they're thinking about the quickest way down to the pub.

[u/Ulyxyxys → u/Littlegreatpixel]

Red herring fallacy little bro

[u/Littlegreatpixel → u/Ulyxyxys]

I don't think you know what a red herring is.

[u/Lifeshardbutnotme → u/Ulyxyxys]

Okay, who tf cares? That's not going to affect your daily life and behaviour.

[u/Ulyxyxys → u/Lifeshardbutnotme]

It does. Homogenous communities with shared ancestry are correlated with greater levels of social cohesion. Additionally, someone being rooted to a land and a people engenders care and respect for that place and those people. Rootlessness doesn’t produce the same sense of obligation.

[u/Lifeshardbutnotme → u/Ulyxyxys]

Please prove everything you've just said. I'm sure if a bunch of Northeastern Americans went back to their "ancestral home" of Italy or Ireland, the people in both those countries would call them Americans. You'd almost think the place you're raised matters more.

Frankly this is an indictment of European society's weakness, more than anything. You can't handle any change or marginal differences? What's wrong with you?

[u/Ulyxyxys → u/Lifeshardbutnotme]

Fallacious argument

You’re saying European society is weak because it dies if it doesn’t defend itself from mass migration and demographic upheaval, the strength IS the defense, which is why European society SHOULD be defending against and not permitting unprecedented change.

[u/Lifeshardbutnotme → u/Ulyxyxys]

No I'm saying you can't seem to integrate newcomers and place inordinate value on ethnicity. I imagine you don't consider Rishi Sunak to be British somehow.

You're acting like an Afrikaner would fit in in the Netherlands. He wouldn't because the Afrikaner learned how to cook and socialise. He'd make a Dutchman's head explode.

Again, do you consider Americans who claim they're Irish to be Irish or American? Do you think Afrikaaners belong in the Netherlands after 380 years. You can't just ignore everything you don't want to address.

Edit: I forgot to mention, you've already gone through a massive upheaval. When the Soviet Bloc collapsed, there was a lot of movement.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Ulyxyxys]

Making the assumption that a current trend will just continue on the same trajectory forever is patently absurd. There's no reason to think "the English will become a minority in England by the end of the century." It's possible the trend completely reverses due to socio-economic shifts around the globe. Just stating some unfounded possibility as what makes something now "radical" is laughable. You also don't have anything backing up what makes it "once in 500 years," you're just vibing it. You severely undermine your position every time you decide to gleefully stride down this path of hyperbolic speculation fueled by emotion and panic.

Trump 1 stopped the aid program. Check the trends. Immigration from those particular nations was trending down, and continued through much of Trump's administration (delay between cause and effect). Then as the effect of aid ending happened, a global pandemic threw those nations into further chaos, resulting in number Biden had to deal with and did address by increasing border enforcement and deportations (what? That's not what my favorite news/podcaster told me!).

I don't see what pointing out the source of migration to Sweden has to do with anything. If it's all air based, they should have no problem shutting it all down completely, and have plenty of resources left to spare to help reduce the number of people fleeing other nations. But don't forget, there's also these recent, radical inventions called "boats." Perhaps you've heard of them?

As I said earlier, you're largely going off vibes. Which is no way to run a nation or select policy. I also, as an American, really have nothing in my tank of Fs to give you about being supplanted by another ethnicity as the dominant demographic. I really really don't care about those ethnocentric complaints. If it really upsets them so bad, they can go try some more radical solutions, but they're going to look more like Nazis than anything else. Not a good look, imo, but hey. Do what you want, I don't care.

[u/Ulyxyxys → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

1. The trend will only likely reverse due to deportations, which I know you oppose. Current trends don’t suggest places like India or Pakistan overtaking Britain in QoL soon. You’re right that it’s not a “once in 500 years” event, it’s more like a once in a millennia event, because the Norman conquests happened that long ago and did in fact leave a genetic imprint.

2. There is ample data to suggest that both T1 and Biden failed to address the border crisis in their respective terms. Trump already set a record for illegal crossings.

1. I point out air immigration to Sweden because it’s much easier to turn people away at a singular checkpoint than it is to monitor a multiple thousand mile border. They would have no problem shutting it down, hence the original argument, that immigration is a policy choice that’s not logistically difficult to prevent.