Quote Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
The main problem is the immigration of non-refugees. It should be limited because:
1. it is known that there's a limited amount of refugees a country can host. This is very evident today, where it has already gone too far, because there are now neither jobs nor housing for most immigrants - we've past that limit. Thus, the limited number of positions we have, should be prioritized for those who truly need it - refugees.
Doesn't apply to every country you know, some of us have more jobs than people. And more than enough room...

Quote Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
4. massive immigration creates a heterogenous population. Now, if we are to keep majority democracy, it follows that when the immigrants become a majority, a party that wishes to let their culture and/or religious laws rule the country, will have a high risk of becoming the ruling party. This is essentially, more or less by definition, the equivalent to the foreign population conquering the country, though in an (comparatively) unbloody way. Do they have a valid claim for this land? I don't think so, considering that the reason they live on it is because the local population embraced them to help them. But also remember from #3, that it's not the best of the foreigners we embrace, but the worst of them. Will they be merciful and tolerant to thank for the help? Or will they be affected by the religious interest groups in our countries whose leaders preach murder, theft and gang raping of the local population?
You seem to think of immigrants as one group. Do you really believe that a guy from Nigeria and a guy from Iran has the same view of things? And do remember that refugees from islamic theocracies tend to be those hating it, not those loving it. If they loved their system, why would they want to leave? If they hate it, why would they want to have the system in their new home?

I work with too many foreigners in the socialist movement to ever consider them a political threat.