I've noticed that in the 'illegal immigration' thread, and in other discussions on the topic here and elsewhere, that someone always brings up an angle along the lines of:
'whites invaded North America (or Australia) in the first place, so how can they object to other people coming to these places without visas?'
It seems to me that this is a spurious argument. It assumes that we are dealing with questions of ethics, and i don't think this is the case. We are dealing rather with a question of self-interest. Yes, white invaded North America and Australia for the purpose of acquiring these territories. But these invasions are (whatever the plural of fait accompli is), and societies have been established in Canada, the USA and Australia consequent to these events. Obviously it is in the interests of these countries to control their borders, and to control who gets to immigrate. End of story. The native Americans and Australian Aborigines would no doubtr like to have repulsed the invasions of their respective territories but were unable to do so. It remains to be seen whether the US (and certain Western European countries) can make their borders more impermeable. It looks as if Australia can, if only because it is surrounded by water. All these countries have immigration programs, and in the case of Australia at least, a refugee intake program. All can be successful multicultural nations, but this depends in part on controlled, rather than uncontrolled, immigration.
Originally posted by dfm65It's makes a change to see some one get off their high horse for a change.
I've noticed that in the 'illegal immigration' thread, and in other discussions on the topic here and elsewhere, that someone always brings up an angle along the lines of:
'whites invaded North America (or Australia) in the first place, so how can they object to other people coming to these places without visas?'
It seems to me that this is a spurious ar ...[text shortened]... al nations, but this depends in part on controlled, rather than uncontrolled, immigration.
Originally posted by dfm65It's just a friggin' bummer since it seems we are running out of room if we can't take anyone who wants to come into our countries due to population or economy and these people are forced to live in places where they either were not happy or had no place to live and work while we enjoy our lives in excess building foreign economies where business owners in these 'better off' countries rake in piles of cash I couldn't dream of spending in a 100 years while locals are forced to sit back as we take away their homes and jobs they could have if our countries would invest in the locals rather than a few rich business owners living a life few could even dream of. Wait... is this a debate?
I've noticed that in the 'illegal immigration' thread, and in other discussions on the topic here and elsewhere, that someone always brings up an angle along the lines of:
'whites invaded North America (or Australia) in the first place, so how can they object to other people coming to these places without visas?'
It seems to me that this is a spurious ar ...[text shortened]... al nations, but this depends in part on controlled, rather than uncontrolled, immigration.
P-