File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3456367 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3456487 mmmm really too bad that no one cares
>> [_] Anon 3456490 >># you'll care when your mouth overflows with GUMBALLS
>> [_] Anon 3456491 >># I didn't say me I'm sure you'd love it if GUMBALLS were spilling out of every one of your orifices.

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW 3413948

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3410940
>> [_] Anon 3411033 B-B-But this ignores the real reason which is that we're not taking in immigrants for humanitarian reasons. We're taking them in because our birthrates are falling and our social security based economy relies on a young working force to replace the previous generations.
>> [_] Anon 3411044 Poor people wouldn't be complaining if we used 5 Gum instead of shitty 25 cent gumballs from a machine.

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3392326 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3392355 >but nobody makes that arguement hurr durr Lets just get this out of the way. People use to make this argument, it was the common libcuck arguement for why we need to import millions of shitskins. This presentation is over a decade old, so consider it a little piece of history before the powers that be had so much power they no longer had to lie and fake their intentions. Your ancestors were told they had so much wealth that it was their moral duty to share it with the world, and now here we are broke and in debt while watching over our shoulders for brown skin rape gangs trying to kill us while they steal our jobs and cultural identity.
>> [_] Anon 3392420 >># >now here we are broke and in debt while watching over our shoulders for brown skin rape gangs trying to kill us while they steal our jobs and cultural identity. Precisely, how are we supposed to help to downtrodden when we can barely even help ourselves? Not to mention the system only allows for immigration of the 'somewhat' downtrodden You take all the new labour from immigration and let them have residency or working visas, then they take all the basic/general/labour jobs since they have no skills or education. The result? Students and the worse-off members of our societies who are in the same situation with little or no skills/education can't get work, hence debt, depression and an intolerance for immigration

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3386704
>> [_] Anon 3386710 Just sayin, I agree with everything he is saying. I still wish this wasn't on /f/ This board seems to escape the dumb culture war, which is why I love it
>> [_] Anon 3386727 two kernels of truth wrapped up in a huge false dialogue loaded with subtle racism and not so subtle anti-egalitarianism. You're right, this doesn't belong on /f/...
>> [_] Anon 3386730 >># I agree. >># Egalitarianism is a cancer and racism is fine, as long as one keeps it within reason.
>> [_] Anon 3386731 >># Seriously? You hate liberty and justice for everyone? What the hell is wrong with you!
>> [_] Anon 3386737 >># I don't think you know what egalitarianism is.
>> [_] Anon 3386738 we can stop them from being poor if they would just want to build their own richness instead of sucking off what we have like an almighty shame campaign that tells us we are somehow supposed to be charitable to people who dont even plant their own farmland.

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3354157
>> [_] Anon 3354165 based gumball desu
>> [_] Anon 3354182 I consider this essential viewing for everyone
>> [_] Anon 3354203 +1
>> [_] Anon 3354240 >># +1
>> [_] Anon 3354243 +1 I am also retarded
>> [_] Anon 3354263 The adventures of Gumball! Also, are you really saying that people don't understand basic concepts such as: You can't just take from a pool of resources infinitely. You can't just have infinite numbers of people settle where you live. The number of resources doesn't increase if you just shift people from one place to another.

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3338974 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3339006 the theatrics of dumping the third round of births onto an already full glass, as if to say those countries can't sustain them, is really dumb, but the rest is decent. is flash meant to be part of the /pol/ spam? because the clip seems to argue that accepting immigrants means stealing pioneers and is a long-term way of keeping rich countries dominant. either way this ain't youtube, bub!
>> [_] Anon 3339042 >># The whole argument is that those who are high skilled and better off choose to stay in the countries that they study at because of a higher quality of life instead of returning back to their own countries to bring their skills and talents to uplift their own fellow citizens. These individuals CHOOSE to stay in the US and western countries instead of improving where they came from so that people there can have better lives than having to go to another country like they did.
>> [_] Anon 3339047 The video is dumb because it argues against a premise that nobody is making i.e. that immigration policies are meant to alleviate world poverty
>> [_] Anon 3339064 I'm posting in here, too
>> [_] Anon 3339066 >># >accepting immigrants means stealing pioneers and is a long-term way of keeping rich countries dominant traditional immigration policy and exactly as immoral as it sounds >dragging everyone and their mother into first-world countries as if sovereign nations have foreign responsibilities "modern" immigration policy or more principally the doctrine of quietly porous borders
>> [_] Anon 3339070 >># https://openborders.info/end-of-poverty/ gee that wasnt hard
>> [_] Anon 3339076 >># >the theatrics of dumping the third round of births onto an already full glass, as if to say those countries can't sustain them, is really dumb, >he doesn't understand visual persuasion look at him. look at him and laugh

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3334713
>> [_] Anon 3334798 I want to punch this guy in the face so badly... I don't know why tho..

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3327137 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3327145 >America taking in immigrants makes things worse for immigrants >lol we can't even make a noticeable dent in world poverty, so why bother >fuck mexicans they're relatively well off compared to african tribals Goddamn this is fucking Ayn Rand levels of stupid. Reminds me of when /f/ was getting spammed daily with zeitgeist shit.
>> [_] Anon 3327170 >># You have pretty shit comprehension if that's what you took away from the video my dude. Either that or just severely ADD.
>> [_] Anon 3327179 >># The guy's not trying to advocate shutting down 100% of all immigration. He's just trying to point out that you can't move a problem somewhere else and pretend that it doesn't exist anymore. Using hard numbers helps put things in perspective.
>> [_] Anon 3327225 >># Nice tunnel-vision.
>> [_] Anon 3327229 >Shitty Rip >Not Funny Please leave
>> [_] Anon 3327254 >># XD thats right bros! /f/ is only for comedy purposes cheap laughs and porn! if you think you're allowed to say things on OUR BOARD you need to leave!!!!
>> [_] Anon 3327270 >># i just kept thinking how funny it would have been if they all fell over and shattered and he would have to be like >oh no... uhhhh.....
>> [_] Anon 3327297 >># >># >># thanks for the input, guy

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3317750 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3317806 >># >comparing how much is made/person rather than potential productibility this guy has never spent an hour stressed at work in his life
>> [_] Anon 3317844 That was the most racist thing I've ever seen
>> [_] Anon 3317857 Stop posting youtube rips
>> [_] Anon 3317872 >># How?
>> [_] Anon 3317873 >># >Anon missing the point. It sounds like you are a neet and never worked a day in your life.
>> [_] Anon 3317880 >># >># It doesn't agree with his liberal worldviews, so it must be racist.

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3316282 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3316349 fuck off
>> [_] Anon 3316374 >># GTFO cancer
>> [_] Anon 3316382 >># >all people in the third world are poor >i dont know about poverty
>> [_] Anon 3316383 >>>/pol/

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3306423

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3301002
>> [_] Anon 3301003 >># thanks for this OP. This is the ultimate redpill. If after you show this to your countrymen they still call for open borders, they are with the enemy.
>> [_] Anon 3301007 >># Thoughtful of you to stop by, /pol/, but I can't help but think that this argument is misleading in a number of ways. For example, Mr. Jacket phrases immigration into the United States a couple of times in terms of how many people "Congress lets in." This seems disingenuous to me. As far as I'm aware, Congress doesn't sign a bunch of little forms for each John Doe who wants to enter the country, nor do they pass measures that, for example, set a quota or limit to the number of immigrants to the United States. Secondly, it assumes that immigration to the United States is exclusively an issue of global humanitarianism, leading to the Nirvana fallacy illustrated by the use of gumballs here that I will re-state here: "There's no way we can handle everyone in the world who is desperately poor, so allowing the desperately poor to immigrate here is a waste of time/a mistake." He also makes some sadly unsubstantiated claims about how many immigrants would strain our natural resources etc. The conclusions do not follow, and the weakest part of Mr. Jacket's argument is where he assumes them by framing the issue in terms of what will fail to "make a dent" etc. This leads me into a third complaint: Mr. Jacket regularly and dramatically drops additional gumballs into the small glass representing the United States, and acknowledges that these gumballs likely represent the brightest and best of their home countries. He does not, however, treat them as such. Instead, they stay "gumballs" like the rest, despite the fact that, over the course of the years he purports to represent, those gumballs (if they have the potential he suggests they have) ought to have acclimated to the rest of the population and no longer represent a population "strain" on the American economy (as the rest of the gumballs represent). Like the rest of the speech, if this is not necessarily manipulative, it is carelessly misleading. Now please return to your containment board.
>> [_] Anon 3301008 >># I'm far too drunk to read that right now.
>> [_] Anon 3301011 >># That may explain why you're so easily persuaded by an old man with some props, but to be fair it was a bit long winded. I'll break it down a bit. >1. Congress doesn't directly control immigration numbers, so why is he acting like they do? This is misleading. >2. Just because "only" taking in a certain number of immigrants may fail to "make a dent" in the world population of desperately poor does not have bearing on whether or not it is the right thing to do. >3. The gumballs represent portions of the extremely poor population, but the gumballs dropped into the glass representing the United States are supposed to represent portions with notable talents and/or potential. Why do they continue to be represented as a strain on the population as he adds more marbles, when they should be assimilating? I have more complaints, and probably better ones, but these are the ones I've already stated.
>> [_] Anon 3301012 >># Still too much. I'm going to need you to break it down to no more than four words.
>> [_] Anon 3301013 >># The argument is misleading.
>> [_] Anon 3301014 >># It was tough, but I stopped the room from spinning long enough to read that one.
>> [_] Anon 3301021 >># >1. Congress doesn't directly control immigration numbers, so why is he acting like they do? This is misleading. Congress can pass stronger/weaker immigration reforms and controls the "purse strings". >Just because "only" taking in a certain number of immigrants may fail to "make a dent" in the world population of desperately poor does not have bearing on whether or not it is the right thing to do. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Soviet Union tried to create true equality of outcome and we all know how that turned out. >The gumballs represent portions of the extremely poor population, but the gumballs dropped into the glass representing the United States are supposed to represent portions with notable talents and/or potential. Why do they continue to be represented as a strain on the population as he adds more marbles, when they should be assimilating? Operative phrase here is "should be assimilating" Let's here those better complaints.
>> [_] Anon 3301025 >># >The Soviet Union tried to create true equality of outcome and we all know how that turned out. It's worthwhile to note that the United States' immigration policy does not prioritize the creation of "true equality of outcome," either. >Operative phrase here is "should be assimilating" Mr. Jacket's argument does not attempt to claim that these individuals are not assimilating: neither does he substantiate an implied claim that they are not. In effect, he cedes this ground without contest. I'm willing to interpret his arguments in good faith, not make them for him. In claiming that desperately poor population members with high potential ought to "bloom where they are sown," Mr. Jacket echoes a sentiment that one ought to always "pull oneself up by one's bootstraps." This sentiment has been rightly mocked because of its cruel absurdity for individuals faced with impossible circumstances, which can occur even in first-world countries. Is it possible for a physics savant born in a third-world country to develop and apply his talents in an environment devoid of opportunities for higher education? Enabling talented individuals to immigrate to the United States enriches our country and actually allows their talents to bear fruit: to follow through on the farming metaphor, it's a stupid farmer who leaves prize plants to wither in abandoned fields. Mr. Jacket claims that this is unethical, that we are in some way stealing these talented people from their countries: I contend that these individuals ought to have freedom of movement, the better to develop their talents and apply them to better the world. The suggestion that certain individuals have some sort of transcendent, universal "potential" that enables them to succeed in any field against any odds is a Randian farce. This does not obviate the possibility, conveniently ignored here, that these individuals might CHOOSE to return to their home countries and enrich them.
>> [_] Anon 3301028 >># I thought he said let's help them where they are at. Not necessarily just let them fail aid them in a way so they can succeed that doesn't involve filling up our own country.
>> [_] Anon 3301037 >># I don't understand why countries are poor. Or more accurately. I don't understand why countries continue to be poor, are things getting better very slowly or am I right in assuming something drastic needs to change. Or has the "solution" to poverty already underway, just not in a timescale that's convenient for everyone who is poor right now?
>> [_] Anon 3301038 >># Poverty is a cycle for anyone, including countries. Terrible living conditions create terrible workers which create terrible businesses, the main draw that "fixes" countries are Businesses from other countries (USA) coming in for workers, but with terrible workers there's no reason.
>> [_] Anon 3301039 >># He did, and that's a great idea. The thing is, I don't think that idea conflicts with the idea that some people can help themselves over here better than we'd be able to help them over there: to follow my earlier example, airlifting food for starving people is great, but it's not going to enable that physics savant to get his Ph.D. if there still isn't any education. The mistake is in thinking of "helping people who come here" and "helping people over there" in terms of a dichotomy, which I don't think is justified. >># I can tell you now that there are plenty of theorists who would argue that it's because rich countries like the US sort of prop up systems that make it harder for developing countries to get out ahead (e.g., American companies that run sweatshops so American consumers can continue to buy t-shirts on the cheap, at the expense of the workers who made them), but even if that's true, it's probably only one factor of a really complicated problem. TL;DR: IDK
>> [_] Anon 3301041 >># >># >Mr. Jacket You can say whatever you want; I've already seen threads discussing this before. The thing I can't let go of is that his name is right there in the beginning and you keep typing Mr. Jacket. Maybe I'm autistic
>> [_] Anon 3301042 >># Fuck me, really? Somehow I completely skipped over that. That really makes me look like a real asshole, but I swear it really was because I only watched the video the one time and I didn't remember that it mentioned his name. I really should've double-checked, so that's totally my fault. Thanks for pointing that out.
>> [_] Anon 3301045 >majority of world population makes less than 2$usd a day >spend 2000$ on gumballs for a 10 minute presentation about poor people
>> [_] Anon 3301047 >># so sad https://i.imgur.com/6LoM4c7.gif
>> [_] Anon 3301062 >># >the United States is exclusively an issue of global humanitarianism, leading to the Nirvana fallacy That's not a nirvana fallacy. He's, merely pointing out the futility of immigration as a means of reducing poverty. >I will re-state here: "There's no way we can handle everyone in the world who is desperately poor, so allowing the desperately poor to immigrate here is a waste of time/a mistake." You're creating a bit of a straw-man there. He advocated that accepting what few immigrants that they do makes no noticeable affect on world poverty, is likely counter productive. He also asserts that doubling their intake would overwhelm the US's capacity to process/assimilate them. >He does not, however, treat them as such. Instead, they stay "gumballs" Hes making a demonstration of whats happening over 1 years growth. It would be utterly disingenuous to suggest that immigrants can be assimilated within one year. Housing, schools, roads, healthcare, and all other infrastructure needs to grow to accommodate the new population. Honestly i think you've utterly missed the point of this video, and are instead defending the freedom of people to go where they please. This video was about how ineffective immigration is at reducing poverty. If you chose to argue outside that scope, i'd suggest you take it to /pol/ because its not related to this video. Also stop being so god damned stuck up when you're so shit at making an arguement. I suppose i should tell you to return to your containment board /b/, you'd find
>> [_] Anon 3301063 also this guy is assuming that money is the ultimate factor in letting people from war ravaged, poverty stricken, dictatorial countries immigrate here when the truth is that its quite simply giving people who dont have a chance to have a good quality of life where they are actually have a chance in america regardless of the hit we take economically to assimilate these poor souls i dont think anybody really believes that a us mandated 2 million immigrant quota is going to solve world poverty because of course that isnt feasible what is feasible is that 2 million more people who may have otherwise been executed, ostracized, ect. for their skills and intelligence that are not valued in poor countries can come over here and at least have the possibility of a good life keep in mind the kinds of people immigrating here who can change their own countries for the better are also the people who get shit on and executed pricely because they go against the status quo and can rise to the top in cambodia these people were the subject of mass killings all throughout history this has been true all this really boils down to is if you actually care about your fellow human beings or if you care about money
>> [_] Anon 3301064 >># >Most immigrants coming to Western countries are poor and we welcome them from the kindness of our hearts Yeah, sure.
>> [_] Anon 3301065 >># *precisely lol still waking up sorry
>> [_] Anon 3301066 >># >Mr. Jacket claims that this is unethical, that we are in some way stealing these talented people from their countries Another Straw-man. Not once does Roy bring ethics into the equation, nor does he suggest they are stealing. He does however argue that by taking the best and brightest they are making it harder for those countries to develop. At face value i'd completely agree. However immigrants have a huge tendency to send money back home. This would help bolster the local economy improving things for the home country. So without more data i can't comment on that. >I contend that these individuals ought to have freedom of movement Freedom of movement isn't a human right, and you're making it sound like it is. Countries have the rights to establish borders and define what is and is not acceptable within those borders. You could argue that freedom of movement is whats best for them, and you'd probably be right. Still doesn't mean they deserve freedom of movement. >The suggestion that certain individuals have some sort of transcendent, universal "potential" that enables them to succeed in any field against any odds is a Randian farce. Hahaha, still at university huh. Also another straw-man, hes suggesting that leaving entrepreneurs and other talented individuals behind would help the home country. Its a valid point, because obviously it would. >This does not obviate the possibility, conveniently ignored here, that these individuals might CHOOSE to return to their home countries and enrich them. I notice that you have conveniently ignored the fact that these individuals might CHOOSE to never return to their home countries, instead having been a net drain.
>> [_] Anon 3301067 OP has a small white dick
>> [_] Anon 3301068 >># >e ultimate factor in letting people from war ravaged, poverty stricken, dictatorial countries immigrate here when the truth is that its quite simply giving people who dont have a chance to have a good quality of life where they are actually have a chance in america reg What a load of shit. First up, immigration is about letting skilled and compatible people into your country. What you are talking about about is accepting refugees. >what is feasible is that 2 million more people who may have otherwise been executed, ostracized, ect. for their skills and intelligence that are not valued in poor countries Ignoring how inaccurate and stupid that statement is, i'll ask you what did that achieve? There are still 2 billion other peopel looking for a better life, why did you pick those 2 million. And why not let those other 2 billion in, all at once. As for improving the life of those million, why was it improved. Because they found high paid work in the US. Do you think there are enough jobs in the US to support 2 million, 5, million, 1 billion new people? If not where do you draw the line. I have zero doubt you have no ability to reason, let alone understand the ramifications of those questions. Please take your virtual signaling elsewhere. Let the real adults manage the real affairs of state.
>> [_] Anon 3301069 Glad to see we're all getting along.
>> [_] Anon 3301071 >># i only brought up the khmer rouge as an extreme example believe it or not refugees are immigrants too and is handled under immigration so your first attempt to dismiss my point is already flawed but lets be thorough and really lay into you the reason we dont let 2 billion people into our country at once goes without saying of course itd be an incredible burden however letting comparatively minuscule amounts in at a time lets our country roll with that burden its still a burden ultimately regardless but its a burden we shoulder to give people better lives regardless if they currently experiencing a country wide genocide or just have the absolute poorest living conditions with no room for expansion because their skills and intelligence arent valued like they would be here on top of that even if we have a net loss in profits and are technically bleeding money from these immigration policies that doesnt mean we dont make at least some money back so its not a complete waste and if you value people over money then all the money we get from immigrants bettering themselves in america is just the icing on top you draw the line at how much the country can possibly handle without going under and this alarmist "congress says we are going to be letting in 2 million people instead of 1 million this year and now our country is going to buckle and be destroyed!!!!' has no statistical backing which is another point the speaker in the video sheepishly didn't bring up
>> [_] Anon 3301072 >># > refugees are immigrants too and is handled under immigration What on earth do you mean handled under immigration? Did you mean that refugees apply with your countries visa program to gain access whereby the host country decides if they are beneficial to their country and only then are they let in? No? Oh so i guess while refugees might immigrate, to lump refugees into the same bandwagon as legal immigrants that go through the visa process is just disingenuous. >lets be thorough and really lay into you You can't even make an argument without creating strawmen and going off-topic. >we dont let 2 billion people into our country [because it'd] be an incredible burden however letting comparatively minuscule amounts in at a time lets our country roll with that burden At what cost. Just because shit happens doesn't mean you get an automatic pass to make your problems someone elses. Life isn't fair, and in my experience, people who try and make life fair only create hellholes. You give the best possible reason for accepting refugees which is genocide. It'd be a good thing to provide them a safe place and/or help them work towards resolving the conflict. But i'd still argue that doesn't mean you have to provide citizenship. As for your other reason, that because life is better in the US, its justification to allow free entry. That is so fucking stupid you should know better. Even if the US had the best universities, that doesn't mean that everyone has the right to study there. cont...
>> [_] Anon 3301073 >># ...on top of that even if we have a net loss in profits and are technically bleeding money from these immigration policies that doesnt mean we dont make at least some money back so its not a complete waste. Spoken like a true business man. One that goes bankrupt very quickly. If you spend $100, and only get $10 in return, and then proclaim to the world that its not a complete loss, well, do i need to explain how stupid that is. >if you value people over money then all the money we get from immigrants bettering themselves in america is just the icing on top What the hell is that. You're not even trying to make sense now, but are instead arguing with feelings. I value my countrymen who share my values, hold the same social values, and work hard to make a living for themselves. I don't value someone from the US, who is socially naive, and has such little respect for money that they will throw it away to feel good about themselves. >you draw the line at how much the country can possibly handle And how do you define that. The US if it *really* wanted to, could accept 50 million next year. Your school systems would grow from what, 1 teacher per 25 children to 1 teacher to 80. Tented ghetto communities would spring up to accommodate the influx. Crime would skyrocket as the unemployed masses would resort to any means possible to make ends meet. Tax and borrowing would also skyrocket to provide food and additional services that'd be needed The peaceful america as you know it would cease to exist. It'd still be able to accommodate 50 million. So does that mean you support accepting 50 million? >our country is going to buckle and be destroyed!!!!' has no statistical backing which is another point the speaker in the video sheepishly didn't bring up Roy said the services would be "OVERWHELMED", perhaps you should listen to waht he said rather than creating all these strawmen. And look at europe if you want to see what happens to social services when overwhelmed!
>> [_] Anon 3301075 >># I'm going to go to bed, so if you do reply, you'll have the last word. I've set it to refresh so when i wake up, this thread will be dead, but i'll see the response. Saying that, if you want to virtual signal so much, i'll give you a hypothetical choice. Its really hypothetical, because the US has such a horrible healthcare system. But the choice is thus: Would you rather have a refuge family as a neighbor, one that would always be a net drain to the tax payer. Or Would you rather provide free healthcare to your other neighbor who needed needs expensive heart medication to survive. Pick one. If you try to pick both: you're a coward. If you pick the refugee: you're a heartless traitor to your nation If you pick the free healthcare: you've made the best choice, but people will call you heartless for not doing both (despite it not being a choice). Welcome to being an adult. There are consequences to your actions, and people will suffer regardless of what you do.
>> [_] Anon 3301077 >># just bookmark this page and check it out tomorrow http://archive.4plebs.org/f/thread/33010 02/#3301002
>> [_] Anon 3301081 >># >He's, merely pointing out the futility of immigration as a means of reducing poverty. >He advocated that accepting what few immigrants that they do makes no noticeable affect on world poverty... I'm going to maintain that this is Nirvana fallacy. Individual donations to aids groups don't make dents in world poverty, either, but that doesn't mean they're not efficacious as a group. >Hes making a demonstration of whats happening over 1 years growth. That's incorrect. Mr. Beck is emphatic in stating that one gumball is the average immigrant population EACH YEAR: he continues to add more and more as he goes, meaning that he is actually representing a period much longer than one year. >You missed the point... Restrictive immigration policy limits rightful and beneficial freedom of movement: the fact that this is not addressed only underlines the limitations of the video's argument. >i'd suggest you take it to /pol/ because its not related to this video. Ha! That's rich. Why don't you leave it there instead of dragging it out here and posting this shit in the first place? I'm only here for [H] and 2hus. >># >Not once does Roy bring ethics into the equation, nor does he suggest they are stealing. I believe you are confused about who he says is doing the stealing. Re-read my comment. >Freedom of movement isn't a human right, and you're making it sound like it is. Without freedom of movement or the ability to opt-out, social contracts of countries are invalid. Therefore it ought to be a right. >hes suggesting that leaving entrepreneurs and other talented individuals behind would help the home country. This implicitly makes the "bootstraps" argument by implicitly claiming that these talented individuals have the capacity to do so in environments devoid of necessary resources. >I notice that you have ... ignored ... that these individuals might CHOOSE to never return Correct. Freedom of movement is a right. >># >white
>> [_] Anon 3301084 >># i guess ill start here >What on earth do you mean handled under immigration? >Did you mean that refugees apply with your countries visa program to gain access whereby the host country decides if they are beneficial to their country and only then are they let in? >No? Oh so i guess while refugees might immigrate, to lump refugees into the same bandwagon as legal immigrants that go through the visa process is just disingenuous. refugees and immigrants both immigrate to america to leave the turmoil of their country and for brighter futures im sorry if you still dont understand that its not disingenuous to group people who immigrate as such when we are talking about immigration me saying im going to lay into you is not a strawman and you say this throughout your retort as a way to deflect and distract. if anything its ad hominem but it barely qualifies as that if at all >Just because shit happens doesn't mean you get an automatic pass to make your problems someone elses. Life isn't fair, and in my experience, people who try and make life fair only create hellholes. america isnt a hellhole currently and we already accept a million immigrants every year so i guess "trying to make life fair" doesnt create hellholes. >You give the best possible reason for accepting refugees which is genocide. It'd be a good thing to provide them a safe place and/or help them work towards resolving the conflict. But i'd still argue that doesn't mean you have to provide citizenship. and i have already said regardless if the reason for immigration is genocide or just abysmal living conditions people have the right to leave their country of origin in search of a better one. thats exactly how this country was founded.
>> [_] Anon 3301086 >># >There are still 2 billion other peopel looking for a better life, why did you pick those 2 million. >And why not let those other 2 billion in, all at once. This is Nirvana fallacy at its core. "Helping everyone is impossible, so why help anyone?" It is indicative of nihilism and moral cowardice. >># This question is kind of baffling, frankly. These options don't seem mutually exclusive. Picking the best option for everyone is "cowardice"? Why? I could accept saying that it's financially untenable, but why is that cowardly? Because I'm refusing to prioritize? Fair enough, but why am I prioritizing between these things in the first place? If I accept that choice, then I must simply accepting your earlier arguments without complaint, and you haven't earned that yet. Picking a refugee doesn't make me heartless, unless you consider "nations" to be more important than actual human beings. Nationalists can get fucked as far as I'm concerned.
>> [_] Anon 3301090 >># >Spoken like a true business man. One that goes bankrupt very quickly. If you spend $100, and only get $10 in return, and then proclaim to the world that its not a complete loss, well, do i need to explain how stupid that is. >What the hell is that. You're not even trying to make sense now, but are instead arguing with feelings. >I value my countrymen who share my values, hold the same social values, and work hard to make a living for themselves. you still do not comprehend the words im saying. i already fully admitted that we are shouldering burden and taking in immigrants at a loss. however if you value people over money then you must realize that saving and improving as many human lives as you can is a reward in its own. you cant write it down in your profit ledger but its a plus all the same. i realize this may be the hardest pill to swallow of them all and probably where we differ the most. i value human life the world over and see it as an asset. you do not. you can call it intangible and touchy feely if you like. if that is the hill you want to die on go for it. >I don't value someone from the US, who is socially naive, and has such little respect for money that they will throw it away to feel good about themselves. i dont do it to feel good about myself. i do it because its the right thing to do. and its not thrown away because again it goes to something that is tangible to me. you may think its thrown away. i do not. >It'd still be able to accommodate 50 million. So does that mean you support accepting 50 million? i dont support letting in 50 million immigrants in all at once since that would be an insane shock to our system. however 1 million has not been a shock. 2 million wont either. and this ties into this part
>> [_] Anon 3301091 >># >Roy said the services would be "OVERWHELMED", perhaps you should listen to waht he said rather than creating all these strawmen. And look at europe if you want to see what happens to social services when overwhelmed! overwhelmed is not a statistic. its an alarmist reaction that has no basis in reality. he gives no sources for this wild claim. and europe is doing fine. you may not have noticed it, but europe was not in the list of countries that the majority of their citizens make less than 2 dollars a day. it is in no danger from a wellfare standpoint. >I'm going to go to bed, so if you do reply, you'll have the last word. I've set it to refresh so when i wake up, this thread will be dead, but i'll see the response. i dont care about last words and i hope you wake up before the thread dies. and you have already decided the answer to the hypothetical as evidenced by your rationale behind each one of the "choices" i have despite the fact your hypothetical has more facets to it than you would want to believe. however within the scope of your question the answer is i am a coward apparently. something of which is also "feeling" based and doesnt phase me in the slightest if you think of me as such.
>> [_] Anon 3301094 >># hokay, importing those people takes resources. America does not have infinite resources. Why not spend those resources on things that make a difference? Your logic is poorly thought through
>> [_] Anon 3301097 >># it does make a difference to 1-2 million people who need a difference made in their lives the quantity of difference does not detract from the quality of difference
>> [_] Anon 3301100 >># Not to go all 'no u' on things, but my logic is not flawed. Yours is. >1. Importing people takes resources. >2. America does not have infinite resources. >Conclusion: Resources would be better spent elsewhere than importing people. The conclusion does not follow the premises, so unless you modify your premises heavily the conclusion is unsound. I can't find a more charitable way to put your argument, and I'm running out of ways to say "just because you can't help everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't help anyone."
>> [_] Anon 3301101 lol you guys are fuckin stupid
>> [_] Anon 3301103 >># wow nice argument fagtron way to convince me with those hot opinions
>> [_] Anon 3301104 >># >Freedom of Movement is a right I'm willing to concede that freedom of movement FROM a given country should not be completely forbidden, but travel between countries is not in any way a right. Nobody, for example, who is not a US citizen has a right to enter the United States. Nobody. In fact, the leadership of the US has both the right and the responsibility to mandate limitations and standards to determine who is allowed into the country for any reason, whether as immigrant, refugee, traveler, or temporary visa holder. And they also have the right to refuse anyone they want. I do think that well regulated international travel and immigration is fine, the system as it exists now is functional, if far from perfect, but the idea that anyone, from anywhere in the world, regardless of personal circumstances and history, could just go "Hey, i wanna come live where you do, shove over." is utterly ludicrous.
>> [_] Anon 3301106 >># thanks i put a lot of thought into it
>> [_] Anon 3301107 >># >the idea that anyone, from anywhere in the world, regardless of personal circumstances and history, could just go "Hey, i wanna come live where you do, shove over." is utterly ludicrous. I think that's a far cry from a reasonable interpretation of "freedom of movement." "Shove over," in particular, implies a right to DISPLACE other people that is not included in the phrase "freedom of movement": that's something else entirely. The fact is that if people have the resolve and the capacity to move to somewhere that benefits both them and the place they are moving to, they ought to be able to do that: to deny it arbitrarily is plainly foolish.
>> [_] Anon 3301109 The real problem with what this guy is saying is that we don't take in immigrants to help them out, we take them to help us out. If the United States did not accept immigrants, our population would be both shrinking and rapidly aging. An elderly population leads to a stagnant economy, and a shrinking population leads to a shrinking economy. The alternative, a growing, youthful population, creates economic growth, not just at the rate that population is growing, but an even higher rate, so that a growing population means that even the people who were there previously are better off. Immigrant labor and taxes a major component of why Social Security is not currently bankrupt. Immigrants and their children already make up 25% of our population, and they don't seem to have caused some sort of "societal breakdown". Our immigrants tend to be more highly educated, more productive, and less likely to commit crimes than the average US citizen. So how are they a burden? The answer is that immigrants are not, and have never been, a burden. If you dislike immigrants, the reason is either because you are an idiot or a racist, and nothing else. They are a net benefit to our society, no matter how you state it. Immigration to the United States helps immigrants, helps the United States, and, at least in some ways, hurts the people in the countries where the immigrants came from. Americans benefit from immigration to America, at the detriment of others. Immigration is not a humanitarian cause, and that's okay. People should not be prevented from moving because someone else is an idiot and thinks that they will hurt them. Anyway, the criminals and the poor in these other countries are typically not able to emigrate from their countries, so we're not even getting them. We get the middle class and the well-educated.
>> [_] Anon 3301112 Fuck you guys I have a big heart. I will take it onto myself to chew all those gumballs! None will be left behind.
>> [_] Anon 3301113 it's not everyday that there's a debate on /f/
>> [_] Anon 3301115 >># Not from /pol/ but I noticed some flaws there. >nor do they pass measures that, for example, set a quota or limit to the number of immigrants to the United States. But they do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigratio n_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 "average immigrants whose numbers were not supposed to exceed 270,000 per year" >The conclusions do not follow, and the weakest part of Mr. Jacket's argument is where he assumes them by framing the issue in terms of what will fail to "make a dent" etc. You are taking the quotes are taken out of context. He's refuting the assertion that mass immigration into the US can be a tool to reduce world poverty. >He also makes some sadly unsubstantiated claims about how many immigrants would strain our natural resources etc. Nobody knows for certain what would happen if immigration suddenly doubled, he is weak on this point; I'm not sure if there are any studies done that investigate immigration's effects on natural/social resources. >Instead, they stay "gumballs" like the rest, despite the fact that, over the course of the years he purports to represent, those gumballs (if they have the potential he suggests they have) ought to have acclimated to the rest of the population and no longer represent a population "strain" on the American economy (as the rest of the gumballs represent). I think you might be reading too much into it and have somehow misinterpreted the simple demonstration. The gumballs never represented strain on the American economy. Each gumball in the USA glass represents an average of a million legal immigrants; The other gumballs represent a million people who make less than $2 per day and later on a million people where the average income is lower than mexico. He said earlier in his speech that doubling immigration would cause the strain. It is true he never said anything about immigrants acclimating to the US which is another flaw in the speech.
>> [_] Anon 3301117 I'm here too
>> [_] Anon 3301118 >># >airlifting food for starving people is great That's a bad idea in the long run. If they're unable to get food for themselves and get airlift food instead of finding a way to get their own food, many more would die (from mothers having more children etc.) if the airlift program gets canceled.
>> [_] Anomynous 3301119 >># Wrong
>> [_] Anon 3301122 >># I thought it was a DFWism, like Joe Briefcase
>> [_] Anon 3301126 >># not him, but you don't though, and thats the issue. No one would ever tell you you cannot take your own money, and give it all to someone else, or that you cannot open up your house and let someone live there. You can do that, but you cannot compel others to do so as well. If every American had equal wealth, and every American lived a comfortable life, then maybe you would have a better argument, but at this point in time any argument for moral immigration is grandstanding, because it ignores the impoverished and poor here. And when a country pursues such a course of immigration, then it is not the few willing who must pay, but every member of the nation, no matter how poor, that must absorb the costs. Further more, you lack perspective of the future. We can absorb more and more impoverished people, but when systems built upon having a specific population buckle and fail, then the amount of suffering will be much more than if you had not put such strain on the systems in the first place.
>> [_] Anon 3301127 >52 posts over a /f/lash holy shit should I read all this?
>> [_] Anon 3301128 >># but that conclusion is sound, you imply like there is not a single way those resources could be spent on this country that does not have immigration at the top of the list. Across the US infrastructure is failing, even in city centers roads are in disrepair. The loss of jobs in various sectors has created a massive lower class of poor in rural areas, who in many cases lack modern amenities. A governments first and only prerogative is to its people, and any government that fails to support it's people at the expense of others is a sham.
>> [_] Anon 3301136 >># thats why poor people shouldnt be as taxed as rich people so the burden is equal relative to the amount of wealth each individual has
>> [_] Anon 3301139 >># but now you are compelling anyone under your definition of 'rich' to pay for something they don't want. And every cent that a rich person pays to ship someone here I would rather see go to the boonies or inner city ghettos to help the people there. If you can show me that there are no ghetto's, and that the rust belt isn't real, then ship in as many immigrants as you want.
>> [_] Anon 3301141 >57 posts imagine even watching this flash and discussing it on a board dedicated to deprecated software held within a website dedicated to taiwanese picture shows

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3291505 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3291508 >># good stuff. Too bad the ((globalists)) are trying their hardest to wipe out the west with rapefugees
>> [_] Anon 3291513 >># too bad the )))tinfoil((( isn't working for you.
>> [_] Anon 3291514 >># >Elites tell us we can help world poverty with immigration Literally never heard anyone say this before. When I hear "help world poverty" I think charity, not immigration. >5.6 billion people live in countries with average income smaller than Mexico's That leaves, what, 2 billion other people in the world? Having a sense of scale is nice, but having misleading numbers isn't. Unless you believe that almost 3 out of 4 people live in poverty, that is. I don't. >Can't help people with immigration Can't help the masses. That's why we usually let in skilled labor or people willing to work jobs Americans don't want. That's how immigration works. Whole talk is practically pro-refugee, too. The problem with them isn't poverty, and it's hard to help people where they are if where they are is in a warzone or other such shithole. If you ignore as much context as this dude, it'd be impossible to say no. Speaker is ass.
>> [_] Anon 3291521 I've always known this and opposed mass immigration. I often tried to explain this to people when they got uptight about Trump wanting to tighten up on immigration. I'm just unfortunately bad at explaining things and this does a much better job of it. There is actually another factor of high immigration that this doesnt talk about which is becoming more and more apparent in Canada. Immigrants are not melting into the country's culture as immigrants should. Instead creating growing pockets of their own culture resulting in cultural divides.
>> [_] Anon 3291524 >># >where they are is in a warzone or other such shithole Exactly a point made in the presentation - if we take in all the best people, who will be left in these places to make the place better?
>> [_] Anon 3291527 >># I don't know about you, but I haven't seen as much "melting into the country's culture" over here. Ever seen a Chinatown? Shit, if you hear a lick of English in the middle of one of those, that's impressive. Similar things happen with load of other countries of origin. If you can't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there -- there is no such thing as melting into the culture. Just doesn't happen. >># Have fun getting the "best" person to either clear out a warzone or bring sudden lasting peace. Ring me up whenever it happens next.
>> [_] Anon 3291530 >># >That's why we usually let in skilled labor or people willing to work jobs Americans don't want. *Willing to work for pay that Americans can't.
>> [_] Anon 3291538 The problem with this video is just as >># says. Immigration policies are not meant to 'reduce world poverty'. By strawmanning advocates of immigration to that position he misses the point entirely and takes down an argument nobody is making. The parties in favor of immigration are special interest groups and their arguments are almost entirely economical--"immigrants help the economy, immigrants stimulate growth, immigrants create businesses more than natives, immigrants help replace falling birthrates shoring up entitlements". If he wanted to address immigration as an issue he should have tackled those arguments.
>> [_] Anon 3291562 >># >Ever seen a Chinatown? Shit, if you hear a lick of English in the middle of one of those, that's impressive. You do realize that for a long time it was essentially enforced that all Chinese people were required to live in Chinatowns, right? They exist in every big city not because all the Chinese people wanted to live in comfort together, but because they weren't allowed to leave. That's why a lot of second generation Chinese are way more acclimated than the third/fourth generation Chinese whose grandparents were born in Chinatowns. I live in a large city that's about half recent immigrants, including Hmong who are regarded as the least acclimated ethnic group in the US. There are going to be some cultural differences, like the number of Mexican immigrants means better Mexican food, but other than that it's about the same as any equally sized city.
>> [_] Anon 3291601 The most astounding part of this presentation is that he didn't spill any gumballs until the end when he meant to.
>> [_] Anon 3291610 >># If you think that's the only reason, you're pretty wrong, my dude. Speaking as a second generation Chinese immigrant, we may act like everybody else in public, but in private, my family and I are about as stereotypical as you can imagine. Lots of money grubbing, eating weird shit, speaking in Chinese, watching things from mainland China, etc. It's not because I'm forced to do it, it's just enjoyable. I got my cultural bubble, and I don't particularly want to give it up because somebody doesn't like the idea of eating chicken feet.
>> [_] Anon 3291618 >># That's how it is with every group, though. My grandparents spoke German as their primary household language until 1939 when they decided for some reason to stop. The notion that immigrants come in and form a bubble is as old as immigration. In the US, the Germans, Italians, Poles, Irish, etc. all kept their culture in their community, but over time they became American. The Chinese are different, because they were treated differently until the last century. You may not have been forced to do it now, but had you arrived a century ago you absolutely would have been. But your kids are going to be more American and less Chinese than you, and so on. The problem with the initial argument is that it assumes the melting pot will happen instantly, when integration is a generational thing. (note: a lot of sociologists used the term "tossed salad" for a while instead to account for the social bubbles that formed, but then they found out what the slang of "tossing salad" meant and stopped calling it that)
>> [_] Anon 3291629 >># Oh boi SURE, you are the best country in the world we all NEED your help!!!!!! > Go and fuck yourself. I will keep loving to watch how you kill yourself in that little piece of crap you call country
>> [_] Anon 3291634 >># I hear it all the time. The crisis in Europe for example, when my friend tries to explain to me why we should allow them all to arrive in Europe. His argument is Its about spreading the wealth and lessening the misery of those people, and how Europe has no right to stop them because of their Human Rights, etc. The flip side of the coin is fixing poverty. Two sides of the same coin. >Unless you believe that almost 3 out of 4 people live in poverty, that is. I don't. By western standards, they most certainly do. Poor to zero education, poor to zero medical treatments available, no life savings, etc. Perhaps they think they aren't in poverty, but again, by western standards they'd have huge handouts to provide them access to such services in western nations. >The problem with them isn't poverty That we can agree on. But it doesn't stop people proclaiming that we should open our arms wide and accept any and all who come knocking. Because the net result is a crushing overloading of our social infrastructure. >it's hard to help people where they are if where they are is in a warzone or other such shithole. Welcome to life, the world is unfair, and every country has the government it deserves.
>> [_] Anon 3291636 >># >the world is unfair, and every country has the government it deserves. I mean, you don't always deserve having the CIA/Kremlin rig your election. But that shit has happened hundreds of times.
>> [_] Anon 3291637 >># >Literally never heard anyone say this before. When I hear "help world poverty" I think charity, not immigration that's literally what most "refugees" are now. not escaping wars, most are "economic refugees"
>> [_] Anon 3291640 >># Oh fuck off, this wasn't even the issue.
>> [_] Anon 3291646 >># there's "Chinatowns" in many countries. either every one of those countries hated Chinese or forming together happens. challenge is to get immigration that integrates not pools people together

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3276619
>> [_] Anon 3276635 I like how this guy put it. Hate how people can't see that taking in extra immigrants is not the way to help struggling nations.
>> [_] Anon 3276659 >># The idea is supposed to be they go back and help their people but in practice, yeah. I agree with helping them there, but people are going to warp this guy's words to be more along the lines of "let's kick them all out and become isolationist and let them die outside our walls"
>> [_] Anon 3276660 >># Some immigration is healthy for any nation, but taking extra people in just because they're from poor nations to help those nations is a really bad approach.
>> [_] Anon 3276677 >># Absolutely, but people feel any immigration is purely toxic for a country's growth which is a shitty and wrong attitude. Refugees is another one people don't seem to understand and instantly assume because some of the bad come along with the rest of them that they must all be bad, but that's a different can of worms.
>> [_] Anon 3276678 I like the way he thinks. Think long-term. Actual long term, not just the next couple of years.
>> [_] Anon 3276686 >># >it's been 20 years since my immigration >got a degree and a stable good paying job >suddenly gov says:"Go home, Pajeet!" Is this how it should be like?
>> [_] Anon 3276688 >># I think we got enough mex, coming from one. Dude you think white people fuck like rabbits, our people can multiply 3 times if you look away for too long. >># If you put in the work and earned your degree then you're fine pajeet the graduation ratio for bean is not even close so at least you guys attempt to learn. All we do is get tha wimmens prego and manage to shell out more money than we should for children by having a handful rather than just two kiddos. That or run terrible restaurants.

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3271680 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3271687 it's a good thing i'm too poor and stupid to care about people in other countries and their problems.
>> [_] Anon 3271753 Am I the only one having a hard time believe that 5.5 billion of the worlds 7.5 billion live in a country with a lower average income then Mexico?
>> [_] Anon 3271756 >># gumballs don't lie
>> [_] Anon 3271757 >># Hmm, that is quite the compelling argument.
>> [_] Anon 3271760 >># >Implying immigration is the only way to benefit poorfags >Ignoring that there's a strong economic argument for open borders and free movement of labor for correcting market imbalances >># Mexico, shithole that it might be, is relatively well off compared to a lot of dirt poor shitholes that have very large populations (think places like india and nigeria, or most of Africa for that matter). Though a good chunk of the reason Mexico does even half decently is mainly because they share a border with the US.
>> [_] Anon 3271764 >># I'm not really questioning that so much, Mexico isn't as poor off as it could be, I can grasp that much. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this was done in 1996 correct? at least thats what I understood from what I read up on. If that is in fact the case, the world population was a mere 5.8 billion. Also, in 1996 china had a population of 1.2 billion. That alone makes it hard for me to believe his statement claiming that 5 billion people live in countries that have an average income less then that of Mexico, when China has a higher Average income then Mexico (at least as of recent, i couldn't find stats about their incomes in 1996). His claims seem so outlandish to me from what im understanding I feel like I'm missing something altogether.
>> [_] Anon 3271770 >># You may be right. I didn't even realize this was that old so I am definately somewhat off. However I do think china was relatively poorer back in the 90s, even if it wasn't so bad in the cities a lot of the population still lived very rurally IIRC even in the mid 90s. Assuming some charts that I found on google images are correct, the GDP per capita in the mid 1990s for china was around $3000 (in 1990 dollars), where as for Mexico it was somewhere around 50-100% more at about ~4600-5500 (my calculations could be off though since I did some shit in my head to make the results roughly equivalent.) That would at least seem to indicate that it might not be off to assume that the Chinese income was worse at that point.
>> [_] Anon 3271772 >># Hmm ok, that does make a bit of sense but the numbers still seem off. Hes still claiming a number somewhere in the 5 billion range but the US has 260 million, bringing down the 5.8 world population to 5.5~5.6. This isn't even counting any of Europe.
>> [_] Anon 3271774 >># Yeah, that does seem suspect. Well, fuck if I know what's going on. You're probably right about the numbers being off somehow.
>> [_] Anon 3271775 >># I'm not naive enough to believe that immigration would solve world poverty but I don't think that it's as fruitless as this guy is trying to make it sound. I think a healthy mix of aiding the countries that need help as well as taking some in (and not just the US, any country that can do so) would probably be the ideal way to handle this.
>> [_] Anon 3271776 >># I'm glad someone sees my point, I was afraid I was just vastly misunderstanding the presentation.
>> [_] Anon 3271777 Bah, the point of immigration isn't to help immigrants, it's so bankers have brand new targets to saddle massive debt on that they couldn't access otherwise, while the taxpayer gets to cover the expenses of the immigrant in entering a situation to take loans from said bankers.
>> [_] Anon 3271783 >># meme videos >>>/pol/
>> [_] Anon 3271792 >># >>Ignoring that there's a strong economic argument for open borders and free movement of labor for correcting market imbalances Then why have protectionist policies?
>> [_] Anon 3271793 >># hellow newfag
>> [_] Anon 3271794 >># Mostly for the same reason humans do most of the counter intuitive shit they do, because we are built for tribalism, not pragmatic dispassionate reasoning or cost benefit analysis on a global scale.
>> [_] Anon 3271797 I like gumballs I wonder where he bought all those gumballs from
>> [_] Anon 3271803 >># Probably the same place the stores get their gumballs for their gumball machines, in bulk from some company. Probably came in a giant burlap sack or something.
>> [_] Anon 3271806 It would unironically be a good idea to start genociding people in the billions in order to consolidate resources so that we may lay down a calculated infrastructure and foundation for the future in foreign lands. How I lament that we discovered Africa so early. If we did so later there might have been a chance that we'd just kill them all and then turn Africa into a proper Asian/European multicultural powerhouse.
>> [_] Anon 3271807 >># >there's a strong economic argument for open borders and free movement of labor for correcting market imbalances Yeah. That's just what I need. More competition in an over saturated market thanks to h1b visa bullshit.
>> [_] Anon 3271809 >># Or we could stop globalism, stop importing people into 1st world nation's like America, Europe, Japan etc... and allow unsustainable nations with population growth problems like Indian, China & Africa burn themselves out, we shouldn't pay for their demographic issues. I'd still like to help those places modernize and find a stable path for themselves but one must as you say consider resources not just in the moment but in the future. Can we really keep sustaining ever higher populations without a dramatic boost from new technologies? Probably not. The worlds population was under a billion in 1900. Now its almost 10 billion.
>> [_] Anon 3271811 >># >Tfw africa will never be depopulated and turned into a giant nature preserve Feels bad man.
>> [_] Anon 3271822 Eugenics. Overpopulation is naturally dealt with either sickness, predation or emigration. We have removed sickness and predation. There is a limited amount of space on this planet, one that we cannot extend faster than we expand. Eugenics.
>> [_] Anon 3271827 >># I'm not aware of anyone seriously proposing immigration as tool to help impoverished people globally. That's a silly argument, and the whole video feels like beating up a strawman. >># >Eugenics. Is a clearly terrible idea, unless you have an extreme level of confidence in your politicians and in society as a whole to make good decisions. >Overpopulation is naturally dealt with either sickness, predation or emigration. Or education and improving quality of life. Which is by far the most successful solution tried so far.
>> [_] Anon 3271832 >># I want to see you go to Africa, India, Southwest America or South Asia to go educating and improving the quality of life of people. Also, newsflash: it has worked in western society, then jewish motherfuckers like Merkel and co. started opening the flood gates to the considerably less educated and impoverished. Nothing is perfect. And you could say China is already performing eugenics, although in a very limited fashion and somewhat indirectly.

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] T R U E S D A Y Anon 3263438 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3263456 Adolf Hitlers favorite candy was gumballs coincidence? thats all I am saying....
>> [_] Anon 3263469 This nigger is a fucking moron
>> [_] Anon 3263471 >># That is neither an argument or accurate, sir.
>> [_] Anon 3263472 >># It is an argument. And it is correct. Thanks for playing.
>> [_] Anon 3263473 >># Okay.
>> [_] Anon 3263475 >># not an argument
>> [_] Anon 3263476 >># T.cuck
>> [_] Anon 3263478 >># Good goy
>> [_] Anon 3263479 >># Care to explain?
>> [_] Anon 3263481 >># nope piss off blumpkin
>> [_] Anon 3263483 >># Ah, you won't explain because you can't. Got it.
>> [_] Anon 3263487 >># >blumpkin Back to plebbit with you, faggot.
>> [_] Anon 3263491 >># ? What the fuck? That wasn't me you're replying to.
>> [_] Anon 3263492 So what is it?
>> [_] Anon 3263496 >># It looks like I'm replying to the right person. But if not, then my mistake.
>> [_] Anon 3263497 Go back to pol troll
>> [_] Anon 3263508 >># kek
>> [_] Anon 3263509 How long does /f/ think will it take until overpopulation will actually become a global issue and governments will have to start taking action? A century? 50 years? Dare I say 20?
>> [_] Anon 3263516 >># Siberia alone has space for at least another 2 billion. Better start building that infrastructure, Vladimir, the LBPs are coming!!
>> [_] Anon 3263519 >># >How long does /f/ think will it take until overpopulation will actually become a global issue and governments will have to start taking action? 20,000 years
>> [_] Anon 3263524 Overpopulation is a prime reason for us to look towards space colonization to save humanity. I would have thought we'd be smart enough to stop conflict at this point but I guess those cash dollaroonies and land are more important than making a bright future for our offspring.
>> [_] Anon 3263527 >># space colonization is too far off the only real cure is to stop importing fast breeding immigrants into stabilized first world populations and also let fast breeding populations that can't sustain themselves (ala Africa) die off though it could be fine to try and help them lower their birthrates and establish better societies more similar to ours so atleast over time perhaps they can become less of an issue and perhaps with newer technology a decently well off society themselves also most "conflict" has never been supported by the average people its just crazy elites behind most of it I mean do you think most American's want to be fighting all these wars in Muslim lands? If it was up to the American citizen we'd shut down most of our foreign bases, bring in all our troops and establish a much smaller military budget based around self-defense and border control rather then psychopathic imperialism. all wars are created by and driven by the elites for evil and unjust reasons usually with a healthy dose of greed/power similar to what many Communist leaders desired
>> [_] Anon 3263528 Fuck man. I was just looking for some memes and you went and made me think about the inevitable extinction of our species. Fuck you.
>> [_] Anon 3263529 >># Pierce the heavens and never give up!
>> [_] Anon 3263530 >># pierce my butt kid
>> [_] Anon 3263533 >># You're a dumbass just like OP, you know that? Eugenics is the only way. Time to start sterilizing those who procreate without the financial means to raise families. Africans who get all that relief aid, you know what they do with that wheat/rice/etc. that they steal from each other right of the delivery pallets? Mama eats the food and lets babby starve. Then she lets another monkey inseminate and the cycle repeats. And the UN, UNICEF, et.al. expect first world to foot the bill. Solutions may be distateful to sjw's, but solutions that work are solutions nonetheless.
>> [_] Anon 3263538 >># >but solutions that work are solutions nonetheless. so we should have allowed Hitler's final solution?
>> [_] Anon 3263545 >># Well, without all the border invasions. That rustles neighbors' jimmies and makes the program fall apart. Refer to history.
>> [_] Anon 3263547 >># (cont'd...) well to be honest, there's no evidence the Jews couldn't sustain themselves. I'm talking about unsustainable, unchecked procreation.
>> [_] Anon 3263552 >># I didn't say that. I'm talking about a solution for stupid parents that can't take care of their kids. They refuse to wear a condom, can't care for their own children, then they keep getting pregnant.
>> [_] Anon 3263554 >># AHHHhhahahaha, nice anon-appropriation. You didn't say that, you're not me. Check your (You)
>> [_] Anon 3263556 itt neo nazis and community college check your privileges
>> [_] Anon 3263557 >># >># no wait... I think I misread... you're >># right? Damn, time to lay off the rot-gut.
>> [_] Anon 3263558 >># Fuck you and your 'privilege checklist'. Never been to Indoctrination Camp, and never been a Stormfag. Got some melanin too. Get bent, sophist.
>> [_] Anon 3263560 >># >melanin Neck yourself, shitskin.
>> [_] Anon 3263561 >># >itt neo nazis and community college What are you basing this on?
>> [_] Anon 3263564 >># Heh, come at me bro. Apparently you can't tell a darkie from a nigger. s'ok homes, you' get it one day. Probably in the belly while you're trying to buy your crack in a hood you don't know.
>> [_] Anon 3263566 >># >Apparently you can't tell a darkie from a nigger As far as I'm concerned, they're all the same. One target is as good as the next when the race wars start.
>> [_] Anon 3263570 banana cream pie
>> [_] Anon 3263571 >># Interdasting fack: in US, 8-9 in 100 peeps be niggas more than 75% of those be on yo' side. Da noisy minority be givin' darkie a bad name, yo. Did that get in to you?
>> [_] Anon 3263573 >># lol u tk him 2da bar?
>> [_] Anon 3263574 >># MAY I MAMBO DOGFACE TO DA BANANA PATCH?!
>> [_] Anon 3263580 >># >muh third world suffering Thats not an argument, and I believe that is stupid foment the inmigration in order to fix your economy.
>> [_] Anon 3263586 >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># back to /b/
>> [_] Anon 3263590 >># what's "/b/"?
>> [_] Anon 3263591 >># da bee board on 4cham (only oldfags will remember smiley)
>> [_] Anon 3263595 >># 2050, at our current rate, is roughly when we'll break the 10 - 11 billion people carrying capacity of this planet and mass starvation and poverty will sweep the globe.
>> [_] Anon 3263597 Any geofags know how long it'll take before global warming saves the world?

File: Immigration.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3222224 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3222253 >># Bump for OP. It's a simple concept, but it seems to escape most people.
>> [_] Anon 3222261 >># >># I like his message, and the presentation is done well, but videos converted to swf shouldn't be on /f/.
>> [_] Anon 3222266 But the gumball isn't poison, it just tastes like shit. SInce when did the terrorists "poison" America? They've always been around and America has always been too strong for them. Personally I can handle a shitty tasting gumball every once in awhile, it doesn't ruin my taste for gumballs. What's the point of living in a world with gumballs if you can't enjoy them? Besides, statistically there's a much greater chance of me getting maimed in a car accident than culturally enriched by an immigrant. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" ~ Obie Wan Konami in Star Trek
>> [_] Anon 3222274 >># Did you even watch the video? It has nothing to do with terrorism.
>> [_] Anon 3222275 I've seen this video before and it really rests on the flawed premise he sets up that 'people are pro-immigration to reduce world poverty'. If that was why the US had relatively open immigration policies then this video would have a point.
>> [_] Anon 3222276 >># I'm pretty sure his whole post was just a convoluted shitpost, judging by the end of it.
>> [_] Anon 3222277 >># >If that was why the US had relatively open immigration policies then this video would have a point. There are a number of reasons why people support mass immigration. If you ask a liberal why they support it, it's because "they're just trying to make a better life for themselves", which the video proves isn't a solution. Their next line is, "They do the jobs that American's won't do (FOR THAT PAY GRADE), which means that their support for mass immigration is no longer humanitarian, but that they are 100% in favor of exploiting foreigners for cheaper products, which makes them complete assholes.
>> [_] Anon 3222278 >># >># Then what the fuck is he arguing? This argument is always used for real life shit like the Muslim ban, nobody is talking about world hunger these days even though they SHOULD (fuckin Somalia)
>> [_] Anon 3222279 >># If you would like to talk about "world hunger", let's start with Zimbabwe. The nigger government seized farmland from all the white farmers. They then gave it to niggers who can't farm. Now they're all starving to death, and begging the international community for support over their niggery. It's like this in many other places, in regards to a variety of infrastructure projects. The "international community" helps them out, and the literal retard local population immediately fucks it up. But apparently taking in a bunch of these retards will stop the rest of them from being retards somehow.
>> [_] Anon 3222281 >># Immigrants don't just do jobs that Americans don't want to do, for example many tech sectors have highly educated immigrants that are very valuable to their work force. I support making it easier to legally enter America because they're actually an asset to our society, not for any airy philosophical or conceptual reason.
>> [_] Anon 3222284 >># >Immigrants don't just do jobs that Americans don't want to do, for example many tech sectors have highly educated immigrants that are very valuable to their work force. That Americans could do. Tech sector likes hiring people on visas because they can literally ask them to do anything under the risk of being fired and deported. This further drives down wages in the tech sector that could have otherwise been going to Americans, you commie fuck. The worst part is, that these tech giants try to frame their jewery as some sort of "humanitarian" bullshit, completely disproven by the above video.
>> [_] Anon 3222285 sure is alot of small white dicks in this shitty thread
>> [_] Anon 3222286 >># First of all, I don't want to talk about world hunger because the way to solve that isn't by jiving about it online. Secondly, you're view of the situation in Zimbabwe is, in your own words, retarded. Thirdly, making your sentences bite sized is annoying. >># TECH SECTORS PREFER TO HIRE AMERICANS BECAUSE THEY DONT LIKE FILTHY SHITSKINS LOL. Jesus dude it only works one way, immigrants don't get all the good sides of life and cause all the bad ones, the only reason a Pakistani guy gets a job at Google is because his education is on point and he has a good job history. I'm sick of middle aged white people with a bachelors degree complaining they can't get a good job with their "years of education", two DUI's, and that three year gap when they lived in Europe on their daddy's dollar. Meanwhile the guy with a Master's from a top university, high recommendations, and solid work history gets the job and then gets talked shit about uneducated fools like yourself.
>> [_] Anon 3222291 >># First off, that's entirely what this video is about. Secondly, that's not an argument. You can look up the situation yourself. I haven't even exaggerated. Thirdly, even in bite sized portions, it was too much for you to digest. I could write one word per line if you really need me to.
>> [_] Anon 3222292 >># >I'm sick of middle aged white people Well, yes, that's quite obvious. >Meanwhile the guy with a Master's from a top university, high recommendations, and solid work history gets the job and then gets talked shit about uneducated fools like yourself. From Dumbfuckistan, should apply his fantastic skills from the University of Pooinloo to bettering his own country.
>> [_] Anon 3222313 >># Itusesalargenumberofflawedconceptsinorde rtopromoteasneakylittlemessageof'AmericaF irst'.Thatimmigrantsoverburdenournaturalr esourcesandinfrastructure,whichtheydon't. Justthinkaboutthatforamoment.If1mpeoplepe ryearwasallittooktocausethecollapseofever ythingintheUS,naturalbirthsofcitizenswith inthecountrywouldcauseustotoppleperpetual ly.Thatwe'retakingawaythebestandthebright estfromothercountriesisalsononsense.Peopl emovetowheretheirtalentsandassetscanbeack nowledgedandprovideafutureforthemandtheir familiesandthat'slargelynolongertheUS.Stu diessuchasMigrationofProfessionalstotheU. S.(Zagheni2014)demonstratethattheUSisnolo ngerattractivetothescientists,engineers,a ndotherprofessionals.We'realsonottryingto easeworldpovertywithimmigration.Mostimmig rantsaremovingheretowork,averysmallpercen tagearerefugeesfromhumanitariancrisises,a ndtherest are from various misc sources such as marrying someone and moving in with them. So the point stands, while he feigns making sensible arguments (We need to help people in their own countries) he offers flawed logical loops to lead to disconnected conclusions based on false truisms.
>> [_] Anon 3222320 >># But that IS his point, the circular logic of being pushed back to talking about immigration every time we try to put it on hold or limit it while we have other discussions or make other plans. People should be talking about world hunger. People should be talking about well digging, building roads and infrastructure, vaccination programs, education programs, etc for these countries, IN these countries, instead of spending (depending on who you talk to) 20-60K a piece to resettle economic migrants and refugees to the US. >># I think you're miscounting. We're not talking about just one million people. We're talking about one million people over the natural birth rate. One million people who, by the way, need way more food, clothing, and resources in one year than a newborn baby will need for probably his first three or four. Immigrants are a much more serious drain on resources than the normal increase in population of a healty birthrate.
>> [_] Anon 3222322 >># That's a really effective presentation
>> [_] Anon 3222326 >># I think the point is that people use that argument to support pro-immigration policies without understanding what they're saying. The truth is that, by taking in the more highly skilled immigrants and leaving the rest, we improve ourselves and leave them bereft of skills that would make them less easily exploited. His argument is to either stop pretending like what we're doing is humanitarian, or to reverse your position and support different immigration polices. >># >"they're just trying to make a better life for themselves Well, the actual immigrants are. It's just that taking a handful of people doesn't help the ones left behind who are in even worse positions. Small scale it provides opportunities for people to get much better lives than would have been possible otherwise. Large scale you're hindering foreign development without making a significant dent in the problem, and never will because niggers are too dumb to use a condom.
>> [_] Anon 3222327 >># >natural births of citizens within the country would cause us to topple perpetually The birth rate in the US is slightly below the rate needed to sustain a constant population. >># >We're talking about one million people over the natural birth rate. Immigration (at the current level) is what keeps our population roughly the same.
>> [_] Anon 3222335 >># >Besides, statistically there's a much greater chance Fallacy of relative privation
>> [_] Anon 3222338 >># reducing our population is only bad because we have a debt based, privatized monetary system. there is nothing intrinsically wrong with letting our population reduce naturally. >># what flawed concepts and why is "America First" a negative policy to you? Immigrants are burdensome on our economy: http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011 >57% of immigrant household require welfare, as compared to 39% native population your argument by analogy is vacuous. >People move to where their talents and assets can be acknowledged and provide a future for them and their families and that's largely no longer the US. not relevant > We're also not trying to ease world poverty with immigration with the rebranding of illegal aliens as "Dreamers" by the Obama administration, that's an outright load of bologna >he feigns making sensible arguments (We need to help people in their own countries) your example of a "sensible argument" is not an argument at all. it's an opinion. what "loops" and "truisms?"
>> [_] Anon 3222350 >>#
>> [_] Anon 3222379 >># Which begs the question, why do we have such lenient immigration laws, and why don't we punish illegal immigrants? The best and brightest aren't coming here, like you said. It's not a humanitarian effort, like you said. From what I understand, it's mostly a bunch of unskilled workers that come here for work or benefits. That can't possibly be a good thing, since it means diluting those jobs and benefits between immigrants and Americans. So why are immigrants good?
>> [_] Anon 3222389 >># they offset the power of unions
>> [_] Anon 3222391 >># They work, they also buy shit, or they send money home who then import shit. It hurts domestic low-wage workers but helps about everybody else. Illegals mostly cost us in education and emergency healthcare but they pay it back through sales taxes.
>> [_] Anon 3222392 >># GET FUCKED YOU UNDERAGED STATIST SIMPLETON you can talk to me when youve actually done something for the USA, otherwise your just a pleb shit who's living on the backs of white people while complaining about them

File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anon 3217498 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3217499 Damn, this nigga put a bunch of gum balls on a table. I get it now
>> [_] Anon 3217504 [citation needed]
>> [_] Anon 3217530 >># Agreed.
>> [_] Anon 3217538 So the entire point of that presentation is that if you want to combat poverty, you shouldn't drag all the third world countries here but instead try to raise quality of life in other countries. How is this news to anyone?
>> [_] Anon 3217540 >># It's apparently news to the dipshits in Washington D.C. Praise Trump, he'll put some schoolin' in their soggy liberal heads.
>> [_] Anon 3217541 >># he was much or less criticizing how the immigration policy doesn't help the countries the immigrants are from >># I guess they do it just to say they "helped"
>> [_] Anon 3217547 >># Well I wish Merkel would realize this instead of annihilating Germany/Europe.
>> [_] Anon 3217548 >># Agreed.
>> [_] Anon 3217549 >># it would be really dandy if instead of taking literally everyone we would take only the educated
>> [_] Anon 3217552 >># Nobody wants to hear that around here buddy. This nigga lumped all long term visas into a single group. He forgets some of them are students coming here to learn. Some are IT professionals, filling jobs americans are too lazy, poor, or stupid to get themselves educated for. Some are escaping senseless war, in some cases, proxy wars between america and russia, or even terrorists. Some have had a dream their entire lives to come to America through the visa lottery. Betting everything they have on a minute probability of making it through the entire selection and verification process. Too fucking bad nobody takes civics anymore, or understands why we have a Statue of Goddamn Liberty.
>> [_] Anon 3217554 >># >Insert picture of "The goddamn batman" with a photoshop of the statue of liberty under batman's mask.
>> [_] Anon 3217556 >># I'm too tired to make an argument and this really doens't matter. FAggot.
>> [_] Anon 3217557 >># Way to disregard humanizing information. I bet you're a stand up person, the people in your life must really enjoy having a beacon of hope around. Sincerely, Faggot.
>> [_] Anon 3217558 >># >the people in your life must really enjoy having a beacon of hope around. it's very surreal they all know i would sell their souls for a single corn chip and still i can neet if you ask me they're what's wrong with the word t. neet
>> [_] Anon 3217559 >># >Some are IT professionals kek, yeah, like 0.01% of the immigrants >filling jobs americans are too lazy, poor, or stupid hate intensifies >Some are escaping senseless war, in some cases, proxy wars between america and russia, or even terrorists. You missed the whole point of the flash >understands why we have a Statue of Goddamn Liberty Lady Liberty has nothing to do with immigration, moron.
>> [_] Anon 3217560 >># There are several phrases associated with the Statue of Liberty, but the most recognizable is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This quote comes from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus, which she wrote for a fundraiser auction to raise money for the pedestal upon which the Statue of Liberty now sits. The poem did not receive much recognition and was quite forgotten after the auction. In the early 1900s and after Lazarus’ death, one of her friends began a campaign to memorialize Lazarus and her New Colossus sonnet. The effort was a success, and a plaque with the poem’s text was mounted inside the pedestal of the statute.
>> [_] Anon 3217561 >># this nigga isnt smarter than a 5th grader what a fuckin cuck
>> [_] Anon 3217562 >># Well, try to teach me better instead of just insulting me.
>> [_] Anon 3217565 >># The former U.S. ambassador to India, Richard Verma, estimated last year that 70% of the 85,000 H-1B visas issued annually go to Indian workers. The visas, which are currently allocated by a lottery system, are hugely oversubscribed -- demand for them in 2016 was three times more than the number available.
>> So, for 2016 H1-B visas issued in total for indian tech workers was around 59,500. I assume this quote from the Indian ambassador was based on actual government information of course. Seems a bit higher than 0,01% Also; India is the third highest requestor for visas, Mexico(For obvious reasons), and for some reason the philippines are ahead of them.
>> [_] Anon 3217566 >>Correction: *former US ambassador. I'm googling at high speed right now, as keeping this information in my head is unnecessary, such is why I have the internet.
>> [_] Anon 3217568 >># The issue is that the argument that we're helping the poor is completely stupid, since this just hurts these countries more. And we already have an unemployment problem, why bring in more people? Why can't we spend some of this money bringing in the homeless and poor, educating them, and putting them in the positions that Americans are "too lazy, poor, or stupid to get themselves educated for?" And why should we take in people affected by wars caused by us, instead of just focusing on not causing these wars? And why should we take in people affected by wars not caused by us? And should people's dreams really be how we judge them fit to become Americans? Should we really let a dumb quote under s French statue determine our immigration policy?
>> [_] Anon 3217570 >># You can convince those who adhere to logic, but good luck reaching a liberal
>> [_] Anon 3217571 >># The point is that most immigrants are cheap workers and not "it professionals" I guess even most of your "indian tech workers" are less educated than an american academic. Also consider the point mentioned in OP's flash: The few Indians who made it to the USA will have a better life, but the rest still have to life in poor conditions. Wouldn't it be better if we encourage the Indian elite to stay in India and help them improve the conditions in their own homeland?
>> [_] Anon 3217572 >># this
>> [_] Anon 3217579 /pol/ here hes right, what the united states is really great at doing is called brain drain, we take the best and most qualified from other countries, in the hopes that they will return to the countries they came from, but more often than not they stay im all for this, fuck immigrants, go back to your own country and help your people THERE
>> [_] Anon 3217580 >># >/pol/ here Hey man, thanks for stopping by. We really appreciate it.
>> [_] Anon 3217581 It's funny that /pol/ can't distinguish an economic migrant from a migrant fleeing war or natural disasters
>> [_] Anon 3217582 >># it's funny that /pol/ is one person
>> [_] Anon 3217584 Oh look it's the immigration meme.
>> [_] Anon 3217585 >># This task is apparently too difficult for the brightest minds in Germany and the EU, why would /pol/ be able to? It has been estimated by agencies like Frontex that more than half of the supposed refugees are economic migrants, after all. Furthermore, I sincerely hope you are not proposing US migrant policy brings in a million refugees per year. Virtually all immigrants are economic migrants, and virtually all proposals in US migrant policy is economically driven. I understand and agree with the case for actual refugees and youth/women fleeing disasters, but I have yet to be adequately convinced that it isn't simply another way to assuage white guilt at the cost of everyone's lives, in the same way that- as the flash addresses- economic migration kills US job opportunities to the benefit of only the most profitable of companies and at the cost of the American worker AND the countries they came from.
>> [_] Anon 3217591 I don't get it. the top 1% and those lucky enough to get out of their poverty-stricken shit hole are immigrating to better countries such as the USA. But there are also facts that say that these immigrants are also returning back to their countries to give their families a better life. While the above fact is hurting america and its potential for jobs to be fulfilled to legal citizens, it's also making their home country a .00000...1 percent better in terms of whatever they deem as economically stable. I guess there just aren't enough statistics to give a full grasp of the situation. there are just too many factors to account for on whether it's good or bad. 1 million people is big relative to the town you live in, but small compared to your country and even smaller when compared to the world. speaking of statistics, where do you get your statistics from? Can't really trust news sites. they're all biased.
>> [_] Anon 3217594 How do we help them there though, in all seriousness? Is it the aristocratic elite in their countries that simply need to be genocided or are their countries inadequately equipped with the natural resources required for production?
>> [_] Anon 3217596 >># You're going to the fucking gas chambers friend.
>> [_] Anon 3217600 >># >Islam completely fucks up a country >Hey I'm an Islamist let me in! Go fuck yourself to death.
>> [_] Anon 3217609 >># How the fuck is it anyone else's problem that these fucking retards have ruined themselves, you dumbass cuck? They unironically deserve to die en-mass. Otherwise, you are making the problem worse..
>> [_] Anon 3217610 >all these uses of the lump of labour fallacy Anons please. >># Also this.
>> [_] Anon 3217611 >># >in the hopes that they will return to the countries they came from Yeah, no. No rational actor poaches and develops talent hoping it will go away. The entire idea of brain drain is that these people leave their shitty countries for good, and enrich their new host country instead of their original. If the point was to send them back and do it as something out of the kindness of our hearts it wouldn't be called brain drain, it would be something like "brain enrichment".
>> [_] Anon 3217613 >># >Constant CIA destabilization ops, military insurrections and proxy wars, and histories of colonialism in nearly every poor or destabilized country >"Everything that happens is their fault, fuck civilians they all deserve to die horribly" said anon while stuffing his fat face with a big mac and posting on his iPhone on a gook cartoon website. Man Americans really are retarded aren't they?
>> [_] Anon 3217618 >># >Praise Trump, he'll put some schoolin' in their soggy liberal heads. you think trump gives a fuck about the quality of life in third world countries? he just wants to put the kkk back in amerikkka, dumbass
>> [_] Anon 3217631 >># >he just wants to put the kkk back in amerikkka holy shit you're retarded
>> [_] Anon 3217640 >># >I guess they do it just to say they "helped" All while never suffering from any decision they make, given that they live somewhere above that shit.
>> [_] Anon 3217643 >># >A statue is law