The curious dilemma of Immigration


Listen man, Africa has had some great leaders in the past. The problem is that most of them weren’t liked by the West so they decided to kill/get rid of them.


tbf for a country, 50 years is a short time. Many of these countries are very old, still dictatorships or have only recently become democracies.

The US had a civil war and looked a basketcase almost 100 years after being a country.


Trion is right 50 years is a good long time to put things in place for a country/state to get they shit together. But African continent is a special case most of the worlds resorces are there corporations and western governments would not allow them to them to freely exercise self determination




Only 2 para in and already its depressing.

Sidenote - great article so far.


Yeah it’s awful. Sadly nothing new, western companies taking advantage of a corrupt region.


Following this!


Welcome along and all that but we really don’t need to know what threads you are following.


Why thank you!


So the situation in Venezuela is finally surpassing the capabilities of L.A. of absorbing immigrants, protest and attempts to close borders have occurred in Brazil. Peru and Ecuador have put extra measures to limit in ingress of people.
Chile is far enough and set up some migration barriers a few months ago, mainly to curtail the Haitian migration that started the last 2 years(1% percent of Haiti moved to Chile). Many Venezuelan still want to come here but it’s a long process and a long travel so only what used to be the middle and upper class can afford it.

It’s apparently the largest mass migration in the history of the continent,(internal, not considering the Europeans during the 19th/early 20th century).

Oh and Argentina might collapse, again, but they don’t tend to leave their country.


This is a problem that the left have no idea how to talk about or deal with. I think I read somewhere - and not just the Daily Mail lol - that by 2050 Christian White Europeans will be a minority in their own continent. That’s not going to end well no matter what we plan to do, and by plan I mean do nothing.


Left are no worse than right over the issue. Political motivations would have you believe this is true - its a fallacy.

Its a issue of human nature plain and simple… and as a species we wont resolve this problem until we both politically and economically look at the world and those in it as one environment that affects us as a collective.

This and the realisation that the solution can only be a global effort are what’s needed… and I doubt this will come anytime soon (if at all) and even then - I strongly suspect it will be too late.


Immigration will stop or massively decrease when the people’s home countries are prosperous.

There’s a reason there has been an increase in Syrians and Libyans coming to Europe.

I think the left should make that clear, that increasing aid budgets and money given to these countries will be a net benefit. Of course the racists won’t be happy about that either but make it clear it’s either that or the people from those countries come here, and I think people will be receptive.

Bill Gates said something similar.

Of course that would mean western governments would have to put aside their ulterior motives of regime change and resource plundering by letting these countries pick competent leaders instead of tyrants, which seems like a big ask.


Aid money is all well and good, but it needs to be used in a way to educate people in the country so that they can make the changes and improve their country. Self-sustainability is key. Additionally, governments would need to crack down on companies from exploiting these countries. It’s a complex issue that needs a resolution. There are some great programs out there, but they won’t work on their own.


You’re quite right of course; you’re entire post is right, not just the bit quoted above.

When I single out the left for lack of narrative, I mean they bury their heads in the sand on the issue, whereas the right at least come out with unworkable rubbish such as build a wall, keep them out, but at least that’s a methodology no matter how inane. Ultimately the save Europe so let them all die argument will probably win the day; if for no other reason than it will be the easiest method to implement. @Electrifying, the issue will be centred on Africa more than the Middle East.


both, plus south asia too.

Due to climate change, I can see it getting really really bad in the future unless people wake up.


Yep. Well it’s already started. I think this also feeds into Brexit and why many politicians are willing to crash the economy. By 2050 Europe and the United States will both cease to be white majorities. Aside from the cultural fear this brings, it’s also a death toll for Republicans in the U.S and Conservatives in Britain. Where will they get their votes when only 40% of population is white. This is a blatant time-bomb because right wing whites hold power and they wont relinquish it easily. And personally, though obviously no racist and a general fan of immigration, even I don’t much like the idea of granting greater influence to the cultural norms and traditions of the Middle East and Africa. By 2050 we would need to hope that the rate of assimilation of peoples into British culture is fast enough.


I always thought the practical ‘solution’ for the most prominant African nations to ‘lead’ the rest of the continent to greater economic security was for African people in diaspora to go back to home and enrich their land with the best aspects of western culture armed with Western education having lost some some of thier tribal identity which plauges some many African nations from internal unity.

I know this is basically saying ‘we don’t want you here, go back to your own country’ which has always been overtly racist comment but I see it as a kind of duty and honour to be part of a ‘saviour’ generation that creates an environment where Africans can thrive in thier own nation rather than seeing the West as the promise land. The major element missing from alot of nations is competent leadership and management.

The balance in the world is too one sided in favour of the West. It’s an issue I discussed in relation to football ages ago which drew some heat from other posters (because the point was put across poorly initally tbf).


My turn to the dark side seems complete.

I am currently starting to read Douglas Murray’s - The Strange Death of Europe. So far, strip away his silly desire to return to some Christian golden age, and what is left is actually a very well written and researched rebuttal to the case for immigration. Rather than get into the detail, because I feel so incredibly torn on the issue, not least because my wife is an immigrant and I’m…well…a tolerant lefty, I thought it would be useful (for me) to ask a few questions in the hope that some of our fine posters will comment on them.

  1. If we accept that immigration at current levels is desirable, do we envisage an upper limit? Is there a ceiling? Or do we just keep on adding 50-100K a month, or whatever the figure is, forever?

  2. Given that the white British population have a home the same as any people do, would it be ok for this demographic to become a minority - on what timeframe who knows, but lets posit it somewhat distant, say 70-100 years. Would that be ok?

  3. If numbers continue to the same level can we be certain that British values wouldn’t be negatively affected? By British values I mean rule of law, human rights for woman, gay people and indeed minorities etc? To what extent do we take a chance on this if we are unsure?

  4. If to 1-3 you feel my questions are essentially dark-side idiocy, which it could be, try reversing the scenario - would it be ok for the scale of immigration that we know to continue as is for other countries and cultures? Would it be ok for say 75K a month white people to settle permanently in say Bhutan, Korea, Thailand or Chile? Would they be racist for insisting it stop?

  5. What is the actual reason for large scale immigration? Is it moral (excluding refugees and asylum seekers), is it financial or something other?