Future of the European Union

[Fragony]

Do I support following national and international law on the processing of asylum claims? Yes.

The situation will continue to degrade in Latin America as violence increases and crops continue to fail (hi climate change!). Hundreds of thousands of Central Americans (population Central America ~ Ukraine) have already migrated to Mexico in the past few years; without serious reform eventually collapse will cascade... It's the same story all over the world. People today flee their homes for the same reason people have since the advent of sedentary living. We are reaping the whirlwind of our policies. A siege mentality is detrimental to both outsiders and insiders.

I hate to say it but you are so dumb. Immigrants simply go to the west because it's easier, they will be provided, and even complain and ravage stores and harass women

I know what we hauled in as I do actually help real refugees. Finding knives in your bed, wir schaffen das. Not the rocket-scientists we need. Just go

[Montmorency]

I hate to say it but you are so dumb. Immigrants simply go to the west because it's easier, they will be provided, and even complain and ravage stores and harass women

I know what we hauled in as I do actually help real refugees. Finding knives in your bed, wir schaffen das. Not the rocket-scientists we need. Just go

No. Most people do not want to leave for anywhere. They come to avoid starving or being killed. If you want them to go away you need to make sure where they're going will not see them starved or killed.

Try to imagine, Fragony, that someone whom you don't like may still be a "real refugee". Your sympathy for someone is not the basis on which the status of refugee is conferred. For example, let's say there's a pro-Nazi German in Poland who's done awful things. Real war criminal, right? But here come the Soviets driving out all the ethnic Germans! Government in the area has collapsed and now he's a private citizen on the run. Boom, refugee. You don't have to like the man, or respect him, or wish him well, but he's a refugee nevertheless. It's possible to believe a whole class of people are inferior, or evil, or unworthy in some sense, and it would still not make them a refugee or not a refugee on that account alone.

Also, if you feel comfortable identifying people who 'deserve' help on the basis of your personal interactions with them, then how can you justify writing off literally all the people whom you've never met and know nothing about? Maybe if you met some more of them, you would get to hear about their knives in the bed.

[Fragony]

No. Most people do not want to leave for anywhere. They come to avoid starving or being killed. If you want them to go away you need to make sure where they're going will not see them starved or killed.

Try to imagine, Fragony, that someone whom you don't like may still be a "real refugee". Your sympathy for someone is not the basis on which the status of refugee is conferred. For example, let's say there's a pro-Nazi German in Poland who's done awful things. Real war criminal, right? But here come the Soviets driving out all the ethnic Germans! Government in the area has collapsed and now he's a private citizen on the run. Boom, refugee. You don't have to like the man, or respect him, or wish him well, but he's a refugee nevertheless. It's possible to believe a whole class of people are inferior, or evil, or unworthy in some sense, and it would still not make them a refugee or not a refugee on that account alone.

Also, if you feel comfortable identifying people who 'deserve' help on the basis of your personal interactions with them, then how can you justify writing off literally all the people whom you've never met and know nothing about? Maybe if you met some more of them, you would get to hear about their knives in the bed.

Most 'refugees' are simply welfare tourists, almost all are young men who should be building up their own countries instead. Human traffickers must be stopped, not aided. NGO's even give the boats back to them. It has become better now but there is still a lot to be improved, Eurpean countries aren't to be held responsible for their breeding. Liking has nothing to do with it, I don't dislike them, but I don't welcome them either they do not belong here. I only care for real refugees and screening is way of. It is getting better though but huge mistakes have been made. I am nota coldhearted person, quite the contrary, I actually enjoy the diversity, but allowing immigration on such a scale is a mistake

[Gilrandir]

Do I support following national and international law on the processing of asylum claims? Yes.

And while the claims are being processed (which, given the amount of immigrants and red tape speed, is likely to take months) you are ready to have them camped in your backyard? With no job, no food, no medical care?

Most people do not want to leave for anywhere. They come to avoid starving or being killed.

Then it would be enough for them to have crossed into Mexico. But they are crusading northwards wishing not abstract safety and food, but American safety and food.

[rory_20_uk]

Then it would be enough for them to have crossed into Mexico. But they are crusading northwards wishing not abstract safety and food, but American safety and food.

That is the critical bit that so often seems to be overlooked - one is supposed to seek asylum in the first country which is safe.

[Fragony]

That is the critical bit that so often seems to be overlooked - one is supposed to seek asylum in the first country which is safe.

In Merkel's case just ignored. It isn't our fault that the childless mutti is barren, who would fuck that anyway. She isn't just stupid she's evil, an ex stasi her codename was Erica, I wonder how many got killed because of her

[Husar]

It isn't our fault that the childless mutti is barren, who would fuck that anyway.

This says a lot more about you and where you get your news from than it does about Merkel.

[Montmorency]

Most 'refugees' are simply welfare tourists, almost all are young men who should be building up their own countries instead. Human traffickers must be stopped, not aided. NGO's even give the boats back to them. It has become better now but there is still a lot to be improved, Eurpean countries aren't to be held responsible for their breeding. Liking has nothing to do with it, I don't dislike them, but I don't welcome them either they do not belong here. I only care for real refugees and screening is way of. It is getting better though but huge mistakes have been made. I am nota coldhearted person, quite the contrary, I actually enjoy the diversity, but allowing immigration on such a scale is a mistake

Virtually all of that is false, I'm afraid. You have the wrong information.

How can you tell they are not real refugees? How did you determine the people you helped out were real refugees? Maybe they weren't real refugees? If you say you could personally screen them reliably but the government can't (you trust blogs more than institutions, but do you trust blogs as a substitute for your own eyes and ears?), then it would be irresponsible to reject all others in principle without screening them. Go find some of these "fake refugees" and apply your proficient methods to assign them a firmer designation.

And while the claims are being processed (which, given the amount of immigrants and red tape speed, is likely to take months) you are ready to have them camped in your backyard? With no job, no food, no medical care?

The government should hire more judges and lawyers to process the log.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement, among other agencies, is equipped to provide services, and can easily be expanded in scope and funding (currently under a billion $) if the government were inclined.

Concentrating the asylees 'in a backyard' would constrain their ability to integrate, find work, and access many services (including legal). They should be dispersed throughout the country on their own recognizance so that they can be assisted by community and civil groups. Currently asylum seekers are required to wait 150 days into the process before being permitted to look for work, which is a disadvantage.

Let's all remember that this is not Andorra we're talking about, but the United States anticipating maybe a couple thousand persons arriving on foot at the border sometime in Winter '19. To fearmonger around this influx would be the basest kind of self-imposed delusion. If we were serious about preparing our countries for the coming influxes of refugees (in the millions), then we would be mobilizing collectively to change our way of life and not raving about Jewish-conspiracy financed jihadi marauders bringing leprosy, smallpox, and miscegenation to White America (literally all charges Trump and the Republicans have advanced to the public).

Anyone who wishes for martial law, for suspension of habeas corpus and other civil rights, and for the military to receive (and follow) illegal orders to massacre noncombatants as a response to news that a modest number of foreigners may eventually arrive at the southern border who are prepared to meticulously comply with border regulations and law of asylum is an enemy of humanity and the United States, plain and simple.

Then it would be enough for them to have crossed into Mexico. But they are crusading northwards wishing not abstract safety and food, but American safety and food.

That is the critical bit that so often seems to be overlooked - one is supposed to seek asylum in the first country which is safe.

1. No, one need not.
2. Most of them get discouraged and stay in Mexico anyway, besides all those who aim for Mexico as their final destination. This will of course, given the continuing lack of effective US foreign policy, contribute to Mexico's (ongoing) destabilization.
3. Under what circumstances will (the individual or family leaving due to lack of food or job or personal security) moving to a foreign country with even heavier gang activity, a hostile government that is stingy at the best of times towards even citizens, and no connections on which to rely, substantially improve one's security? Not often. Do you think along the lines of 'those Latin people are all the same, so one country or another shouldn't make a difference to them'?

In Merkel's case just ignored. It isn't our fault that the childless mutti is barren, who would fuck that anyway. She isn't just stupid she's evil, an ex stasi her codename was Erica, I wonder how many got killed because of her

Do you prefer that she would have demanded the refugees stay in Italy and Greece (mostly Greece at the time)? What if they claimed to be overwhelmed and refused to participate? Should the German EU military have closed their borders and advanced to occupy key positions in those countries until they agreed to take full responsibility for all refugees without EU assistance?

As with other things, you have an irrational view of Merkel.

[Fragony]

No I don't, the rules are clear. If she is in need of atonement she shouldn't bother others with it. A lot of Germans must have an irrational view of Merkel, she is the first post-ww2 chancelor that is outright hated, others were disliked, but not hated

[Gilrandir]

The government should hire more judges and lawyers to process the log.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement, among other agencies, is equipped to provide services, and can easily be expanded in scope and funding (currently under a billion $) if the government were inclined.

Concentrating the asylees 'in a backyard' would constrain their ability to integrate, find work, and access many services (including legal). They should be dispersed throughout the country on their own recognizance so that they can be assisted by community and civil groups. Currently asylum seekers are required to wait 150 days into the process before being permitted to look for work, which is a disadvantage.

Your extensive usage of modal verbs shows a wishful thinking, the world as it should be.
We are speaking of the things that are. And in this World That Is the immigrant posse will still be camped in your backyard while the officials are warming up to what they should do.

Let's all remember that this is not Andorra we're talking about, but the United States anticipating maybe a couple thousand persons arriving on foot at the border sometime in Winter '19. To fearmonger around this influx would be the basest kind of self-imposed delusion. If we were serious about preparing our countries for the coming influxes of refugees (in the millions), then we would be mobilizing collectively to change our way of life and not raving about Jewish-conspiracy financed jihadi marauders bringing leprosy, smallpox, and miscegenation to White America (literally all charges Trump and the Republicans have advanced to the public).

Precedentially-wise, others will follow suit if they see that anyone who just crosses the border (or even forces it) is readily accepted as a wronged poor soul.

Anyone who wishes for martial law, for suspension of habeas corpus and other civil rights, and for the military to receive (and follow) illegal orders to massacre noncombatants as a response to news that a modest number of foreigners may eventually arrive at the southern border who are prepared to meticulously comply with border regulations and law of asylum is an enemy of humanity and the United States, plain and simple.

So if I want to see no unwanted intruders in my backyard, I chafe for martial law, am ready to massacre noncombatants (or at least give order to) and eventually an enemy of humanity.

And I'm more than sure that meticulously complying with border regulations is the last things the modest foreigners are inclined on. They mean to force their entrance into the US and demand for jobs and food. Ohterwise why is there an order to strenghten the border guards down south?

[Husar]

No I don't, the rules are clear. If she is in need of atonement she shouldn't bother others with it. A lot of Germans must have an irrational view of Merkel, she is the first post-ww2 chancelor that is outright hated, others were disliked, but not hated

Trump is also hated, but we don't see you talk about him like you talk about her. One might wonder why that is.

And I'm more than sure that meticulously complying with border regulations is the last things the modest foreigners are inclined on. They mean to force their entrance into the US and demand for jobs and food. Ohterwise why is there an order to strenghten the border guards down south?

And Coca Cola is murdering union reps in Colombia. Sometimes you just use violence to make more money, so what? IF the US don't give a shit about the people south of their border, why should the people from the south give any shits about what people in the US want?

[Fragony]

I don't like Trump, just because the always objective notion that I don't like his face. More then enough reasons to hate Merkel though she is a disastrous woman and she cannot even admit her mistakes, she is a dumb eastblock workhorse fueled by passive agression, that look in her eyes, total stupidity or howdareyou brrrrrr

[Montmorency]

No I don't, the rules are clear. If she is in need of atonement she shouldn't bother others with it. A lot of Germans must have an irrational view of Merkel, she is the first post-ww2 chancelor that is outright hated, others were disliked, but not hated

Answer my question about you evaluating the validity of refugee claims. How do you know who is and who isn't a refugee, and if you are able to tell, how can you dismiss a whole group of people without individually evaluating them yourself?

Your extensive usage of modal verbs shows a wishful thinking, the world as it should be.
We are speaking of the things that are. And in this World That Is the immigrant posse will still be camped in your backyard while the officials are warming up to what they should do.

No, they would not be, and I don't see how you come up with that.

The Trump administration's idea is of course concentration camps, but heretofore the practice of leaving them with court appointments on their own recognizance has worked well enough to avoid claimants waiting out on the streets. They are dispersed throughout the country and are fed and sheltered by charity and civil organizations when family, friends, or government subsidies are not available. This system can easily be improved at little cost.

Precedentially-wise, others will follow suit if they see that anyone who just crosses the border (or even forces it) is readily accepted as a wronged poor soul.

Border crossings are at or around all-time highs despite the open hostility of the Trump administration. Need is what drives emigration, opportunity is what makes destinations. Your implication is that America should be run into the ground so that people would prefer to flee it rather than come to it. Our only options are not to kill ourselves out of spite or to passively wait for the world to collapse; global governance needs reform and immigrant scapegoating is a vile red herring.

So if I want to see no unwanted intruders in my backyard, I chafe for martial law, am ready to massacre noncombatants (or at least give order to) and eventually an enemy of humanity.

No, I'm describing the rhetoric in this country and with whom you are finding common cause, since you don't seem to have more than a superficial knowledge of the situation.

And I'm more than sure that meticulously complying with border regulations is the last things the modest foreigners are inclined on. They mean to force their entrance into the US and demand for jobs and food. Ohterwise why is there an order to strenghten the border guards down south?

You would be wrong. They intend to present themselves at the border for processing, just as the other caravans have done so far. The caravans that have been coming for years, by the way.

You've fallen into a sad bit of illogic. If a fascist demands more troops at the border (skirting illegality under domestic law) in order to control a few civilians yet a thousand miles away (whom he wrongly describes as intruders, invaders, and vermin just as you do) than are in total deployed in Afghanistan, on the eve of a critical election, it is not because he is meeting a genuine threat or has the interests of the country in mind. Don't make me troll you by asking how many ethnic Russians the Ukrainian Nazis have massacred to force Putin to deploy troops to Donetsk-Luhansk.

The Pentagon, thankfully, has acknowledged internally that there is no security threat from a ragtag band of immigrants and have declined orders to assist with enforcement of border law or immigrant detention (which would be illegal, let me say again).

The cost of this deployment, projected in the hundreds of millions, far outweighs any costs of accepting these people.

This is not a serious news story, and it only became one because the media is slavishly devoted to amplifying Trump's vapid provocations.

[Gilrandir]

IF the US don't give a shit about the people south of their border, why should the people from the south give any shits about what people in the US want?

Why should a country's officials take care of the citizens of other countries?

Border crossings are at or around all-time highs despite the open hostility of the Trump administration. Need is what drives emigration, opportunity is what makes destinations.
Your implication is that America should be run into the ground so that people would prefer to flee it rather than come to it. Our only options are not to kill ourselves out of spite or to passively wait for the world to collapse; global governance needs reform and immigrant scapegoating is a vile red herring.

So you admit those are immigrants, not refugees?

You've fallen into a sad bit of illogic. If a fascist demands more troops at the border (skirting illegality under domestic law) in order to control a few civilians yet a thousand miles away (whom he wrongly describes as intruders, invaders, and vermin just as you do) than are in total deployed in Afghanistan, on the eve of a critical election, it is not because he is meeting a genuine threat or has the interests of the country in mind. Don't make me troll you by asking how many ethnic Russians the Ukrainian Nazis have massacred to force Putin to deploy troops to Donetsk-Luhansk.

1. I would be very much obliged if you quoted me using the words "invaders" and "vermin".
Or is it just in line with accusing me of demanding martial law and civilian massacres?

2. You have made your bed by voting a fascist in, now lie in it.

The Pentagon, thankfully, has acknowledged internally that there is no security threat from a ragtag band of immigrants and have declined orders to assist with enforcement of border law or immigrant detention (which would be illegal, let me say again).

When a significant amount of people is jobless and homeless, it won't be long before the security threat pops up.

[Fragony]

@Monty @ first quention,

Why aren't they? There haven't been any serious incidents in the Netherlands, but a 'refugee' randomly started cutting throats, other started stabbing, other attacked a group of Israeli tourists. It are small incidents and nobody died, the AIVD(Dutch FBI in a way) prevented something much worse though but that could be bullshit, they had AK's and explosives, I don't know it that is true. But why are they here.

[Husar]

Why should a country's officials take care of the citizens of other countries?

Basic human decency?

Not being full of shit when they claim to be some beacon of humanity and human rights or when they talk about "liberating" other countries? Funny when your president is called the "leader of the free world" and your border is a wall. Since when are walls a symbol of freedom?

[Fragony]

Basic human decency?

Not being full of shit when they claim to be some beacon of humanity and human rights or when they talk about "liberating" other countries? Funny when your president is called the "leader of the free world" and your border is a wall. Since when are walls a symbol of freedom?

Kinda funny, I am just listening a record, 'all in all you are just a brick in the wall'. The security measures we take here are jokingly called Merkel lego, concrete blocks. That isn't really funny it is coldhearted sarcasm

[rory_20_uk]

Basic human decency is a myth: we are prepared to spend far more on a new phone than giving to others. We are for human rights in the sense we are prepared to sign a petition or like a Facebook post but nothing else really. We only invade other countries for selfish goals rather than to help the locals.

America fools, if anyone, themselves. Yes, they are the most powerful militarily and have tended to support a world order that benefits themselves (lately loosing faith in it since they have only most, not all of the power). But a leader? Far from it - bribing and threatening others to be on their side is hardly "leadership".

[Montmorency]

So you admit those are immigrants, not refugees?

Nice try. Refugees are a subset of emigrants. A helpful mnemonic is that asylum seekers are to immigrants as refugees are to emigrants. Of course any given person tends to be both emigrant and immigrant at the same time, unless you consider the "internally displaced".

1. I would be very much obliged if you quoted me using the words "invaders" and "vermin".
Or is it just in line with accusing me of demanding martial law and civilian massacres?

I told you that it's Trump and the Republicans who reason this way, and wondering how it is you fall into a parallel groove.

2. You have made your bed by voting a fascist in, now lie in it.

You made your bed by defying Putin's order in Ukraine.

Let's see how the midterms go.

When a significant amount of people is jobless and homeless, it won't be long before the security threat pops up.

Include a few more indicators and you're on your way to accounting for Bernie Sanders and the resurgence of social democracy.

@Monty @ first quention,

Why aren't they? There haven't been any serious incidents in the Netherlands, but a 'refugee' randomly started cutting throats, other started stabbing, other attacked a group of Israeli tourists. It are small incidents and nobody died, the AIVD(Dutch FBI in a way) prevented something much worse though but that could be bullshit, they had AK's and explosives, I don't know it that is true. But why are they here.

You said you are a good arbiter of who is and is not a refugee, and the government (nor the "multicultural left") is not a good arbiter. So you met some people, and decided they were refugees. You didn't meet all the rest of the people, yet you have decided that they aren't refugees. Shouldn't you meet them personally before passing judgement if your judgement is especially good? What if for every 'goatherder on the wrong side of the mountain', a hundred have 'knives in the bed'? Wouldn't you want to invest some time and effort before condemning the latter for the sake of the former?

Basic human decency?

Not being full of shit when they claim to be some beacon of humanity and human rights or when they talk about "liberating" other countries? Funny when your president is called the "leader of the free world" and your border is a wall. Since when are walls a symbol of freedom?

Trump is of a mind that barbed wire "used properly" is a beautiful thing.

The better question is, why not? Unless there is some critical and pressing reason to reject an individual (an individual mind you, not a whole race, religion, or ethnicity), why should a person have their movements restricted so? Is there a zombie apocalypse going down?

Gil, this ain't the Soviet Union. Thank you very much.

Basic human decency is a myth: we are prepared to spend far more on a new phone than giving to others. We are for human rights in the sense we are prepared to sign a petition or like a Facebook post but nothing else really. We only invade other countries for selfish goals rather than to help the locals.

America fools, if anyone, themselves. Yes, they are the most powerful militarily and have tended to support a world order that benefits themselves (lately loosing faith in it since they have only most, not all of the power). But a leader? Far from it - bribing and threatening others to be on their side is hardly "leadership".

People are decent when it comes to the personal. If you introduce systems and abstractions, they grow colder. Objectively, allowing immigration is one of the easiest ways we have to improve the lives of multitudes. That's easier to swallow if you personally empathize with immigrants. Contesting demonization of immigrants (seriously, to the tune of 'wetback darkie ISIS cartel smallpox lepers here to destroy our way of life!!!') and at least maintaining the current immigration framework in America are one readily available facets of keeping the decency machine running. Are you convinced the improvements of the past century are both impossible and ephemeral? They will be if we don't defy the Trumpian vision of nations locking their citizens in, shutting foreigners out, and riding roughshod over both in the name of "freedom" while the aristocrats pick our bones...

The American Dream is believing that America can one day become what it has claimed to always have been.

[Gilrandir]

Basic human decency?

American taxpayers aren't supposed to finance that kind of human decency.

I told you that it's Trump and the Republicans who reason this way, and wondering how it is you fall into a parallel groove.

Same reasoning isn't a reason to pass on to my mouth the words I didn't use. And parallel lines never cross each other.

You made your bed by defying Putin's order in Ukraine.

Unlike you, I don't complain. But I thought we were discussing immigration to the US, weren't we?

Gil, this ain't the Soviet Union. Thank you very much.

I can't claim the credit for the fact there ain't no Soviet Union. So you thank the wrong person.

[Husar]

American taxpayers aren't supposed to finance that kind of human decency.

Who decides what they're supposed to finance? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
The inscription on the statue of liberty suggests that you're wrong.

[Gilrandir]

Who decides what they're supposed to finance? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
The inscription on the statue of liberty suggests that you're wrong.

So inscriptions are used instead of laws?

Citizens of a country (via taxes) finance the needs of their own country.

[Tuuvi]

Immigrants pay taxes like everyone else. Even undocumented immigrants who get paid under the table still end up paying sales tax.

[Fragony]

Immigrants pay taxes like everyone else. Even undocumented immigrants who get paid under the table still end up paying sales tax.

Sales tax? Local shops near immigrant centres wouldn agree with that. Food and healthcare is free, it is we who pay that. But there is A LOT just getting stolen, they come in packs so the shopkeeper is helpless. They have little acces to the market because it isn't apreciated here if you come when you please, we Dutch do not care if it rains or have a cough, we just go to work. Having said that, there are also really motivated ones they are more than welcome here

[Pannonian]

Sales tax? Local shops near immigrant centres wouldn agree with that. Food and healthcare is free, it is we who pay that. But there is A LOT just getting stolen, they come in packs so the shopkeeper is helpless. They have little acces to the market because it isn't apreciated here if you come when you please, we Dutch do not care if it rains or have a cough, we just go to work. Having said that, there are also really motivated ones they are more than welcome here

So immigrants costing more than they pay in taxes is the foundation of the problem? What would you say if there is plentiful evidence that immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in state provided services?

[Fragony]

So immigrants costing more than they pay in taxes is the foundation of the problem? What would you say if there is plentiful evidence that immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in state provided services?

lol they cost 8 billion a year, and that is just in the Neds, what do we get back, nothing. Crime and disrespect. Not say that there is no silver lining some are great, but a lot are not. It angers me that christians and gays have to be scared here, it angers me that women feel unsafe, it angers me that shopkeepers feel unsafe, fuck it all, poor guests. The ones I want here I have enough fingers to count them on, and welcome they are they can use a room, use my bathroom, no pay required as long as I like you. Social code is broken, the Dutch code is to live and let live

[Pannonian]

lol they cost 8 billion a year, and that is just in the Neds, what do we get back, nothing. Crime and disrespect. Not say that there is no silver lining some are great, but a lot are not. It angers me that christians and gays have to be scared here, it angers me that women feel unsafe, it angers me that shopkeepers feel unsafe, fuck it all, poor guests. The ones I want here I have enough fingers to count them on, and welcome they are they can use a room, use my bathroom, no pay required as long as I like you. Social code is broken, the Dutch code is to live and let live

If there is evidence from respected institutions that immigrants pay much more taxes than they cost in state services, would you be in favour of them? I'm asking you this question. Don't deflect by saying that they cost a lot and so on.

[Fragony]

If there is evidence from respected institutions that immigrants pay much more taxes than they cost in state services, would you be in favour of them? I'm asking you this question. Don't deflect by saying that they cost a lot and so on.

Yes there are, 80 bllion so far and counting. That is just the Netherlands. It is just dumb. We owe them abdolutily nothing. and as a thanks women get raped. I like women, I want to love them not rape them.

[Pannonian]

Yes there are, 80 bllion so far and counting. That is just the Netherlands. It is just dumb.

I'll ask again: if there is plentiful, indisputable evidence that a group of immigrants pays much more in taxes than they cost in state services, and they do not appreciably cause more problems than other immigrants groups, would you be in favour of them? You're probably talking about another group than I'm referring to. Read my question rather than answer the question of your choosing.

[rory_20_uk]

People are decent when it comes to the personal. If you introduce systems and abstractions, they grow colder. Objectively, allowing immigration is one of the easiest ways we have to improve the lives of multitudes. That's easier to swallow if you personally empathize with immigrants. Contesting demonization of immigrants (seriously, to the tune of 'wetback darkie ISIS cartel smallpox lepers here to destroy our way of life!!!') and at least maintaining the current immigration framework in America are one readily available facets of keeping the decency machine running. Are you convinced the improvements of the past century are both impossible and ephemeral? They will be if we don't defy the Trumpian vision of nations locking their citizens in, shutting foreigners out, and riding roughshod over both in the name of "freedom" while the aristocrats pick our bones...

The American Dream is believing that America can one day become what it has claimed to always have been.

I agree that most people are decent when it comes to those that they care about, and this quickly drops the further away they get - since Christmas is a time to shower one's children with expensive gifts, not help people starving elsewhere.

Immigration to improve the lives of the multitudes is as short term as giving food to someone and saying "problem solved!" First off, the West is struggling with taking on a minute fraction of the potential numbers; those helped are often the ones most able to travel, not the ones most in need. Secondly, the birth rate in these countries means that all the people leaving creates a temporary reduction in population at best. It solves nothing.

People generally are OK with immigrants that assimilate. It is difficult to hate people when you have no idea who they are. Ethnicity, religion and especially culture create divides. And two out of the three can alter to shift to their new reality - and the third decreases with inter-generational breeding.

What were the improvements of the last century? That the USA finally decided to stop treating people of African descent as third class citizens and upgraded them to second class? The limited immigration allowed to the west? Globally, I think it likely that freedom of movement was theoretically better in the British Empire (no need to curtail it - who could afford it?) Improvements have been mainly about freedom of trade, and increasingly the automation of practically everything making things cheaper and more available to all.

Trump is definitely ignorant about most things, and is probably of average intelligence. But he is very aware that his base (as such a term is rarely as well deserved) can be worried about immigrants whilst in many cases being second or third gen themselves and vote for a man who has twice married one. But for them it seems "foreigners" is no way as near as important as skin colour - I imagine there'd be no concern about thousands if not millions of white Western Europeans - as long as they were wealthy - coming over. If having a very limited amount of immigration allows Americans to delude themselves that this is decent, then so be it.

Wealth disparity is increasing rapidly, and movement of people or no isn't going to alter that.