Immigration and the Subject of Boarders



Hello, I am interested in your opinions on the concepts of boarders, immigrants, and how sovereign nations should regulate such matters.

In my opinion, immigration should be limited to skilled individuals (AA degree from an internationally accredited organization or above) as well as the proper ideological mindset that is fertile for the seeds of patriotism, a strong sense of belonging, and willingness to assimilate with the host nation’s culture. Some examples of successful states with decently strict immigration laws are, Japan, Russia, Poland, Cuba, and the United States of America; the ladder of which is seriously loosening their laws to oddly low standards (Democrats need votes I guess). I take the European situations into account with the ideological mindset and willingness to assimilate rules. I also think that male immigrants between the age of seventeen to thirty should be made to enlist in the host nation’s military (Maybe make specific bi-lingual regiments for the conscripts). Ensure that the male/s entering the country are taught English in the service, to ensure that the family’s offspring have at least one English speaking parent in the household so they are not disadvantaged in school or any other situation.

I will leave off with a quote, “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907


Interesting views, but sadly I don’t agree. I’m afraid I have a very different viewpoint – that we should abolish all borders. Borders are a relatively recent invention (mostly after the Great War) which, far from improving society, is single-handedly responsible for keeping much of the world’s poverty. At best, the desire to control borders comes from a sincere and legitimate will to protect societies; at worst, it is the inadvertent or wilful condemnation of entire peoples to die (in effect, borders are the First World systematically killing those in the First World). Studies show that if we were to abolish borders, global GDP – that is, global production ¬– would double.
To outline my views would take an entire book, so I’ll refrain to making one observation. For much of the world’s poor, the best way to get rich is to go and live in a richer country, where there are higher standards of living and bigger markets able to accommodate them. While of course some immigrants would depress the economy, the average immigrant will boost the economy for everyone, including natives. Because we can’t discriminate between ‘good’ immigrants and ‘bad’ immigrants at the border (and, as I will argue, ‘education’ is the wrong way to go about this), we should let everyone in.
As a Catholic growing up in London, I find there would be something gravely immoral about condemning people to die. Many of my friends are Irish, and from 1846 to 1850, Ireland suffered a famine caused by the potato blight, a natural disease. The population of the country – about 9 million – was too reliant on the potato and was farming the land too extensively. A million people died; 1.5 million Irish people emigrated, mostly to the United States, on unseaworthy boats that would almost certainly look like those that today come from Syria and Libya. It was one of the biggest catastrophes in modern European history and it’s shocking how it goes untalked about in most history books. In time, the blight receded and the reduction in population from deaths and emigration meant that Ireland became a more sustainable place to live. Its population now is still only 6.5 million. But if those 1.5 million emigrants hadn’t been able to leave Ireland – if America had turned them away – they would not have been saved. They too would have died, and the potato blight would probably have even lasted longer because the reduction in population would have come later, prolonging suffering from everyone. Because of open borders five generations ago, many of my friends are alive today. Borders would have killed them. And this is the same story today, when every second, someone somewhere in the world dies of hunger.
You made two assumptions I’d like to contest. Firstly, you claimed ‘skilled immigrants are better’. This isn’t necessarily true. If you invite only skilled immigrants, you are likely to cause a brain drain in the country they came from, which is likely to reduce that country’s long-term growth over there, and this prolongs suffering for the very poorest in the world. Not only this, but skilled immigration will increase your own country’s inequality. Furthermore, unskilled immigrants can be just as valuable to the economy and can contribute just as much. Because they are more productive and they fill vacancies in the market, they reduce prices, so we are all richer. Statistical studies demonstrate that immigrants generally don’t depress the wages of the poorest: they almost everywhere tend to complement existing markets rather than compete in them. For example, the jobs unskilled immigrants take in the UK – fruitpicking, factory working – are generally those which British workers would not do, or are naturally less skilled at. If British workers are less skilled at them, why hire them? It costs more and means we pay for it in higher prices, so we all become poorer. Furthermore, immigrants usually can’t compete with locals anyway – they don’t know the language or the local market as well; and they tend to be hired by the same firms (often set up by immigrants themselves) rather than domestically-based companies. If unskilled immigrants can complement the market, they are just as valuable as skilled immigrants. In general, immigrants avoid relying on the welfare state of the country they arrive at (studies show that the average British native takes money away in benefits; the average immigrant adds money in taxes) and any such costs would also be temporary and probably point to an overgenerous welfare state anyway, regardless of who’s using it. The market naturally directs workers to where they are best placed given the demands of the market and the skills of the workers; I trust that workers would also not move into a country if they were aware they would not find a job there, because it would cost them financially and psychologically too.
Finally, you talked about culture. This is a much harder topic to talk about: there is generally an economic consensus in favour of open borders because empirical studies show that immigration is almost always and almost everywhere a good thing. It is much more difficult to address cultural concerns. I fundamentally struggle to support proposals for ‘enforced English classes’ or ‘patriotism’ because I think this is a huge restraint on someone’s individual liberty, which no government can enforce. In any case, I think immigrants have a strong incentive to learn their host country’s language if they want to get jobs or get their kids to do their best, which are strong enough incentives without the government needing to superimpose an onerous and costly demand of its own. I also generally think culture is a transitory and momentary illusion: the average Englishman of a century ago would be appalled at the irrecognisable culture we have today; and studying history shows just how much of a fantasy a ‘British’ or even ‘English’ culture is, with secessionist rebellions in Cornwall common right into the Tudor era or, for myself as a Catholic, Penal Laws existing until the middle of the 19th century. France, for example, didn’t speak one language at the time of the French Revolution (most French people spoke a provincial language and French was only really spoken in Paris); same for Italy until about a century ago. Cultures change, because people or events want it to change (e.g. the need to trade with Cornish tin, the need to defend against the monarchy across France, the need to work together in the Italian political union) so I think it’s silly to identify too strongly with one culture or attempt to preserve it. And all this pales into insignificance when you consider how many people’s lives would be saved if borders were opened: if someone was dying, I wouldn’t say ‘it’s fine, I’ll save you, so long as you promise to drink tea and stand up before Her Majesty’ – nor do I have the right, having saved them, to ask them to do that, even though I might suggest to them that as gratitude for having saved them, they should do that to please me. If you want to live in a picturesque English countryside village, you can also do that – and you can pay for the privilege of it as well! – and if you don’t want to pay for it, then it suggests you don’t really care for culture as much as you say you do anyway, or you find other things (like, having a job) more important.
Which is more, the strongest reason I don’t think we should obsess about ‘culture’ is those countries which are most racially-homogenous don’t exactly have a very strong culture of their own. Paris, Rome, London, etc. were built by immigrants and exported their cultures to the world – but Swedish, Norwegian, Danish cultures etc. are more elusive. Likewise, when we think of big cultural centres in the States, we don’t think of West Virginia – we think of New York or San Francisco, which are cities built by immigrants. The best way of preserving culture, in my view, is to let people in to see it and share it. And so they blend it with a bit of their own culture, or if I start to acquire some words from Jamaican or Swahili? The culture then changes because we wanted it to change, in one direction or another.


The economic reasons you bring up is a mixed bag of true and false items. However I can say that corporations do not run the nation, and what is good for the corporation is not always good for the citizens. You also brought up reduced prices make people richers, which is wrong. The USD is not related to oranges, technically money has no value other than its value to the Federal Reserve.
You like to bring morality up, however you are not speaking to a moral person. I respect morality as a value applied to country men and family; however morality in my opinion does not apply to non-Americans. With the Irish being accepted into our country, they were able to assimilate to the American culture in two generations due to three reasons:

  1. Racial Similarity
  2. Cultural Similarity
  3. Military Service

You can guess why I listed those reasons, they’re pretty obvious.
You often bring up hunger and famine, I can tell you that when the people breed so much even when they can’t feed themselves the problem is not with Europe of the US not feeding them, the problem is they are unwilling to produce anything other than war and children.
You were right about brain drain, I retract my statement and would advise we do not accept too many skilled workers so they can further assist their home country. Also if a worker needs to work in the US all they need to do is get a work visa and wait their turn in line. Not break the law.
The dishonesty you display in the statement, “culture is a transitory and momentary illusion…” is frightening. Culture is not something to be discarded as just an illusion of thought, culture is homogeneity of thought, ethnicity, ability and values. Look at the Jew for example, their culture is thousands of years old, however it has changed in small increments over time. Sure the orthodoxy is smaller than three hundred years ago but they are some of the most successful people on this earth. I attribute that to a strong sense of group conformity and a strong monogamist family base. I would recommend you to read Sex and Civilization to see why I think that is. To say we should not enforce cultural assimilation is doubly stupid; if I come from a country where I am told, “Stone women if they cheat on you.” or “Throw gays from the roofs of buildings” then I think the Customs agent should either deny me from migration or ensure that I understand that what I was taught was objectively wrong. (Here is a few cultural icons the West has created
I don’t dislike you at all, however your points, in my opinion, are only founded on virtue and goodness, which lead to weak men and weak nations. This is evident when a hard decision comes up like, should we go to war or should we collect the debt owed to us. We must treat all country men equal, but the rest of man is subject to their governments and their country men. I owe them nothing, and they owe me nothing.

NOTE that immigration is okay, illegal immigration and the collection of refugees is not okay, in my opinion


We should get this topic back running. So what do you guys think should happen to illegal immigrants into the United State and what should the Europeans do with their hoards of immigrants the EU is forcing them to take in.


Please explain this statement?


I don’t think he understood that history existed prior to the invention of Marxism.


Honestly adapt to the situation and learn to assimilate. If you want to be in the EU at all, you should take all the advantages and disadvantages that come with it.


Is this in reference to the host nations, such as Italy, Germany, and Sweden or is it in reference to the foreign hoards.


I’m saying that with the amount of migrants already in Europe, they should be dispersed proportionately equally among EU members.

An obvious problem that comes up is the issue of social services. To solve this, I believe the EU should set up a member-wide board regarding migrant and refugee social programs. In some countries, that may be above their social program standard, and in some, it may be lower.


Why rule out deportation. I, along with many others, think that Europe is for the Europeans, and Arabia is for the Arabs, and Africa is for the Africans. I fall into the Identitarian mind-set when it comes to Europe.

Now if we talk the USA, I think illegals should be deported and encouraged to go through the legal system, and multi-offenders be executed after trial.


Because ethnicity and homeland are two different things.

If Africans really wanted to go back to Africa, they would etc.

The reason they came to Europe is to build themselves a new life with a new homeland.

A nation that refuses to assimilate those coming from other lands will soon become a dying nation.

The state should never have any capacity to kill through due process because the legal system is imperfect. At max, immigrants like that should receive jail time in their home country.


Both sides are highly opinionated, however I would think my opinion would lead to less multi-offenders.

They should take the initiative to build life within their nations, all they do is create brain drain in their areas. They are traitors to their original nation and they are unwanted in their destination. I understand getting an education in a first world nation, however I cannot express joy at the sight of a individual who abandoned their countrymen for their own selfish desires; if humanity wants to grow, all of it needs to grow and develop, not just the populated and already developed areas. Which reminds me

I can guarantee you that the nations that are being effected by the brunt of the foreign hoards are going to create a backlash that will ripple through history. Take a look at Italy, they’re going to elect a neo-Fascist, they are going to leave the EU, and they are going to forcibly move the illegal immigrants out. I am rooting for Salvini to be honest.


You can’t honestly tell me that if you were living in an impoverished nation, wrecked by war and corruption, that you too would not want to leave?

Often times those nations have authoritarian corrupt regimes, so I don’t think it is a bad thing that they are “traitors” to that nation.

I originally thought the same, however, after looking at the French, Dutch, and German elections, although I believe such parties will gain more influence than they have in the past, that they will not be able to form majority governments.


I would, however I would also know that if I stepped up and created a coalition of people to challenge the government, the corruption, the evils, then in the future I and my family will have a better life.

Your nation is the soil you live on, and if needed you bleed on, not the men whom rule it. The United State was formed through cleaver and righteous action against tyranny, so was most of South America. The people who lived under the British didn’t just move to France in the millions, they didn’t just continue to go West to evade the British, they fought on the coasts of the East to ensure that they were elevated by freedom. These people are not saints, they are not good men, they are cowards and if they wanted to give life to others rather than sustain themselves, they would stay and fight. The French prior to the French Revolution didn’t run away from the monarch because it was oppressive, they fought the monarch, they fought they system so they may have the freedom they so desired; granted it went messed up for a while, however after reform it leveled out and created one of the greatest Empires of Europe.

They don’t need majorities, they need to form coalitions, they use the coalition system instead of the two party system. Anyways, I can tell you once the EU falls out after Italy leaves, France will be next, and so on and so forth; this process won’t be instant, but you will mark my words when it happens in the next ten years.


You cannot compare a civilized war with a well armed populous, two clear sides, and foreign support, to the non-uniformed, unclear allegianced, mess of a place that is Syria and other places in the Middle East.

Without French support and a strong organized elite the Americans would not have stood a chance.

You should not force nationality upon people. Your nation is the country you identify with as your promised land, not necessarily where you were born/grew up.

Well, all lies in the future.


This would be true, but the US had a Range Battalion and multiple active SOCOM combat teams operating in the area with the goal of giving aid to anti-government forces. We aren’t not helping those who aim to take out their tyrannical government.

Nationality isn’t forced upon people, it is what your parents are; now once we get into third generation legal immigrants, then we can say that they are full blooded American, but Irish who came here during the Potato Famine were still Irishmen till they died, and unless they had those kids grow up on the soil, from birth to death, then they were Irish too. Or if any of the citizenship laws apply to them, like the child of a Irish and American couple would be full blooded American too, but that’s a given.

The next twenty years will be very exciting.


And what if nationality when those borders lack any sort of consideration for ethnic or cultural borders? The way the Entente stabbed the Arabs in the back after WW1 is the root cause of most, of not all of the issues in the modern Middle East

Just in case you needed more reasons not to trust those tea-drinking fucks
Africa has similar issues, though their geography makes that even worse (pretty much zero arguable land in most African nations)


Then they will have allegiance to their ethnicity, I do. Re-draw the lines, make your country great; if that requires moving the boarders, if it requires merging into different countries, if it requires making new countries, fight to make those things happen so your children can live there in a safe and happy environment.


I was thinking, a multitude of speakers here often compare the immigration of Irish, German, and other Ethnic European\Western men and women to the United States of America to the immigration of non-Western peoples; I have always found this comparison to be odd, however I never brought it up, as I had no real idea of why I found it odd. I have done some talking to myself and contemplation and I figured that the major difference is so simple yet so impactful, the difference between the influx of immigrants from Europe to the Americas compared to from Arabia to Europe or South and Central America to North America is because there is such a difference in culture, ethnicity, language and customs. Think about it, the Irish came over knowing some English, being ethnically close to the rest of America. The Germans were similar ethnically and culturally, as we have had a huge German community in the North West. The Slavs were ethnically similar, however the ones that came in massive waves (after WWII) were all very anti-Socialist as they saw what it did to their countries.
Compare these people to the massive influx of people from Arabia and North Africa into Europe, what do these men and women have in common with Europeans, Italians, Spaniards, or any of the other countries their boats land Greeks. They have nothing in common, no language, no customs, no religion, no ethnicity, no nothing. As Jared Taylor said, “What they are coming for (immigrants) is to get a First World income, but they want to live their previous life, their previous folkways, language, culture, religion; with a First World income.”


Not really my guy. The ones that want to live that way aren’t going to stay.