>>18539178
Mass migration is the natural consequence of capitalism. The """nation-state""" itself is a proto-globalist construct and entirely a product of mass migration. It was never meant to stop at that level.

Mass immigration is based on 3 premises:

1. Post-ww2 economic recovery and industrial boom that couldnt be capitalized without a massive influx of workers.

2. Prevailing liberalism and liberal institutions such as the UN and EU that advocated for accepting refugees as much as possible. This was likely a result of the Europeans own trauma from ww2 and the acknowledgement that most conflicts post-ww2 were an immediate consequence from European actions such as colonialism.

3. Declining birthrates has meant that even the most nationalistic governments such as Japan has been forced to fold in favor of immigration to fill the gaps in order to avoid an economic depression.

>>18539183
>Post-ww2 economic recovery and industrial boom that couldnt be capitalized without a massive influx of workers.
If that's so, how did urban centers come to exist before WW2?

>>18539178
How can colonialism exist if we’re all once race?

>>18539195
Because wh*toids keep misunderstanding reality.

>>18539198
>we’re one race but you’re white

File: low skill.jpg (102 KB, 762x640)

102 KB JPG

>>18539178
Do you really think the US army can't stop migrants at the border? Do you think an aircraft carrier can't stop a migrant dinghy?

It is because we are a democracy where many vote for progressives and in Europe unironic socialists who believe in the "workers of the world". Ellis Islanders voted for civil rights then black people voted for open borders because they thought Hispanics would be their allies and it would make America less racist or something.

>>18539182
That can't be true due to pic related. Middle class are actually paying more in taxes to accommodate low skilled migrants. As long as we have a welfare state and voters demanding literal whos who show up on the border receive government spending, then the "capitalists" will be at a disadvantage due to migration.

Only a few sectors of the economy like agriculture and construction benefit, but in aggregate they are a net cost. GDP rises, but the middle class is still losing money. An illegal technically raises GDP by, say, $10k, but they receive $15k in benefits as do any family they bring. Of course it is a net loss to the taxpayer a strain on social services and low incomes.

>>18539185
Because the industry was expanding far beyond it had ever been, such as infrastructure and car industry, while simultaniously millions of te original workforce were either dead or crippled.
Also the first economic boom and urbanization absolutely relied on immigration, it was just domestic immigration since 95% of the people lived as poor rural peasants and then moved to the cities for factory work. By mid-20th century there no longer was a rural workforce surplus.
Most of the workforce required was also unskilled labour so it was easier to find some Finn who couldnt speak any Swedish or a Turk who couldnt speak German since they wouldnt have to in order to understand and perform the job. For the Germans or the French themselves few wanted to take those jobs

>>18539203
It's not a race, it's what you call your brainchallenged demographic identifies as.

>>18539204
>That can't be true
It's indisputably true and nothing in your post even comes close to refuting it.

>>18539206
Sounds like you agree with me that mass migration is caused by capitalism and that your fake nation is a product of mass migration to begin with.

>>18539210
No I dont?
I am simply explaining how it was a consequence of ww2.

>>18539178
>through colonialism europeans get access to surpluss labour
Colonialism was never for the domestic labor market. What they wanted was markets and products.

>>18539227
>No I dont?
You do, your reading comprehension just isn't good enough to understand what you regurgitated.

>>18539228
Correct. One can't deny however that as an unplanned for consequence it created a very convenient legal structure for certain countries (Britain and France most notably) to more easily mass import labor from their colonies/former colonies. Now undoubtably they would have found another means to do so (The US never needed to use such a method after all) but it did make it a lot easier and maybe sped it up, and also affected exactly where said immigrants came from.

>>18539208
>we’re all one race but you’re a “demographic”

>>18539242
>it created a very convenient legal structure for certain countries (Britain and France most notably) to more easily mass import labor from their colonies/former colonies
Post-colonial migrants are not labor. They don't work and they were never expected to work.

>>18539246
Yes. There's no contradiction in that statement. Even the Nazis understood that their "Aryan race" consists of different demographics. You're the dumbest kid on the block.

>>18539183
>Post-ww2 economic recovery and industrial boom that couldnt be capitalized without a massive influx of workers.
Horseshit, it was done with barely any migrants, real migrant inflows started in the 80s and 90s, until which migrant contributions were insignificant

>>18539292
If anything it was precisely because the economic boom had worn off/plateaued. But Number must always go up. So they started trying to import migrants to keep juicing Number.

>>18539178
>Is mass immigration the natural consequence of colonialism
Which colonies did the USA maintain?Ireland?
No.
It is simply capitalism.
The largest cost to most businesses is labour.
So, the history of social reform over the last 100 years has been to reduce that business cost.
And ... how do you reduce a cost? By increasing the supply.
So, the Capitalist class went about reforming society to increase the supply of labour.
The easiest win was "women's lib". Forcing women into the workplace, and so doubling the labour pool.
The next frontier was production of goods. So production was internationalised, offshored to China where there is a large low cost labour pool.
And finally, services can't simply be offshored so the service sector labour market has been affected by increasing the mass migration of Labour into countries to fill low skill roles.
You may notice that many of these social changes also correspond almost exactly to Left wing political policy.
* Women's lib and feminism.
* Internationalism and the end of the nation state.
* Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
This is because the Left is the Capital classes social reform wing. The Left, exists to maximise corporate profit margins through social change.

File: The Cost of Illegal Immig(...).png (299 KB, 860x1092)

299 KB PNG

>>18539209
>nothing in your post even comes close to refuting it
How do you refute the fact low skill immigrants actually cost the "capitalists" in a welfare state?

Are these your posts too >>18539210 >>18539239 ? They have the same r*ddit mod Karen attitude. It is like you refuse to be honest and debate this logically out of spite to stick it to the chuds or something. But.. if you can't actually prove your point what have you accomplished besides waste a bit of time and reinforce our beliefs?

>>18539406
see >>18539204

The fact a few sectors like construction and agriculture benefit does not mean "capitalists" as a whole support migration, the other "capitalists" will be paying extra taxes in a welfare state where all these low or often zero tax paying migrants have to be catered to.

Outsourcing is definitely the result of "capitalism", but lobbying the government to open the borders is not because "capitalists" are forced to pay enormous sums in taxes to support a welfare state. Not everything is due to a secret business clique of fat cats as some imagine, the state exists too and it controls the courts, the police, the army et cetera... The state is its own animal.

It is funny, they say the 19th century and 1950s the height of "capitalism", yet in this period everyone was "racist" as fuck and operation wetback straight up deported 1 million mexicans, and now they act like it was always leftists and socialists opposing open border migration. lol, lmao

Open borders is just a ploy to create a political class whose entire existence is to be a vote harvesting farm for the welfare party.

>>18539185
From migration from poorer and rural areas inside the country

>>18539447
>the other "capitalists" will be paying extra taxes in a welfare state
or the state will just print more money and progressively cut on welfare (both of which are detrimental to the middle class)

>>18539450
No, it arises from the view of libertarian autonomy and ownership of one's own labor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sU72yEgD44

Colonialism itself does not bring with it immigration at least short term. We could imagine a colonial empire for example with internal labor controls and market structures like Canada. This would be very ineffificent in allocating labor though. Basically, inefficient labor allocation or getting rid of immigrants causes all sorts of market inefficiences and in some cases failures. You also build in inflation for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yug7Mr0tWAY

What this means is that being aganist immigration has to be on non-consequential grounds in the long term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c30oZTVYHBY


Basically, cosmopolitanism , the view that allows for immigration can be justified on different grounds but usually consequential ones.

>>18539178
It's a consequences of industrialization and banking. It would happened regardless of colonialism or WW2 or whatever chuds here constantly screech about when it gets brought up.
>>18539204
>>18539447
Which slavic/spic shithole did you get paid to post this from?

>>18539178
>Is mass immigration the natural consequence of colonialism


Not necessarily but it's a natural consequence of being human. Literally every nation that exists today is the product of people moving into it en masse at some point in its past. It's what people do. It's uncontrolled and not directed and happens entirely due to circumstances that are impermanent in nature.

Depending on the country there are different responses to it. Generally the cheapest and most effective is a strong border coupled with a straightforward meritocratic uncapped immigration system that actively vets for skill or specific sectors. If you are an island, the first is all that's needed but substitute "strong border" with "strong coast guard".

>>18539450
Open borders are anathema to a welfare state, usually it makes welfare collapse not magically get funding. Welfare states need hard borders and controlled entry. You're projecting your personal politics into it and creating an assumption.

>>18539178
>Colonize the world
>Get colonized in return
What goes up must come down. If it’s any consolation the groups moving in en masse to Europe, like Arabs and Turks, are being replaced in their homelands by immigrants too (Subsaharan Africans, Kurds, etc).

>>18539204
>black people voted for open borders
We haven't had open borders in 100 years

>>18539992
We had open boards just a couple years ago.

>>18539982
Welfare states can work with employment based immigrant which is either high skilled immigrants or low skilled labor. Basically, either the US with seasonal farm workers or medical professionals like nurses. Humanitarian immigration and most refugee immigration tend not to work to well with it. Generally high unemployment economies, places that structurally underemployed people like the young such as contemporary Canada, places with rigid labor markets or where there are large sectoral bargaining and weak productivity growth, especially caused by poor housing development schemes, economies tend to do badly with them. You can have pretty well-developed welfare states with them otherwise.

>>18539204
>Islanders voted for civil rights
Get a load of this shitskin agitprop faggot lol

>>18539999
Saar

>>18540000
I disagree. By nature what you're describing is controlled immigration which would necessitate a strong border and robust vetting process to make sure the immigrants and businesses employing them were all paying their taxes in full and funding the welfare system. I'm not saying you can't have a large amount of immigrants, what I'm saying is they need to be managed and accounted for and this generally implies the immigration isn't occurring massively or wouldn't constitute "mass immigration" as I would identify it. Otherwise you can't be sure the immigrants staying in the country are actually paying into the system they're extracting from.

And just to make sure we're on the same page; do we both agree that the USA is not by any reasonable metric a "welfare state"?

>>18539999
Show me what law was passed that opened the borders.

>>18540014
Not a single law is needed when the executive branch decides not to enforce the laws.

>>18540016
asylum and refugees are both part of international treaties as well as our own laws. It's this current administration that disregarded both.

A common misconception is that open borders means just anyone can come in. That is not actually the case. It means that people are allowed to move across borders with relatively few legal barriers, often subject to basic screening for security, public health, or criminal concern. In fact, a open border can be quite ironically exclusionary of people on various grounds that we might deem arbitary such as wealth or language ability. What is amounts to is default assumption is freedom of movement, rather than requiring governments to heavily restrict entry through quotas, skill requirements, or family sponsorship rules. The way to think about it is that a restrictionist country would be a country closer to Japan or Israel where the restriction is often on in principle things you can't control at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-TGGGDYIWQ&t=111s

>>18539450
Why is welfare bad? Why is welfare in a hypothetical white ethnostate also bad? I've never been given a straight answer to this question. Trannies like you just revert to sucking richfags off.

>>18539999
Joe Biden is the greatest president America has ever had btw.

>>18540021
And refugees are supposed to go to the first safe country and apply for asylum at the port of entry not cross 5 countries while being supplied by NGOs then walk right across the border.

>>18540027
>Why is welfare bad? Why is welfare in a hypothetical white ethnostate also bad?
Because welfare is designed to create people whose jobs are applying for and receiving welfare, and a class of people who administer that welfare. It's not only deadweight loss, but a political suicide for a country. You basically created a voting bloc that has no stake in the welfare of the country as a whole.

>>18540013
Economically speaking it is not really about the welfare at all. It is more about their fiscal and labor-market characteristics of the place they are immigrating too.In some cases, removing immigrants will actually implode the welfare state since cheap labor helps keep prices on the welfare system cheaper.

Governments routinely collect tax information, employment records, payroll data, and social insurance contributions from both native-born and immigrant workers. Legal immigration systems already provide mechanisms for tracking employment and tax compliance, and even economists who favor immigration restrictions generally debate the net fiscal effects of particular immigrant populations rather than claiming that accounting is impossible. Many countries actively select aganist services to immigrants as well. So it is not too shocking to see such control. A common argument even is that some countries intentionally take advantage of less devleoped countries this way to siphon educated but cheap labor that does not get benfits.

An interesting and well known effect that is known. Welfare states rely on social trust and solidarity, and that rapid demographic change may reduce public support for redistribution if citizens become less willing to fund programs benefiting groups they perceive as different from themselves. Some countries have used immigration to subtly deincentize welfare states and undermine support for state ownership. s Tony Blair is an example. He supported high immigration while simultaneously pursuing reforms that moved away from traditional state-centered economic models. Samuel Gompers , the labor activist is one of the first to note this. There is some evidence it might be the integration policy though that causes this.

>>18540032
>skirts around the part where the current admin did exactly what he accused others of
I guess they don't give you shitskins much of a script.

>>18539178
>Is mass immigration the natural consequence of colonialism
No. Its the consequence of allowing jews to dictate the laws of white western nations that their religion requires them to destroy.

>>18540059
>judaism is when beaners hop the border

>>18540060
Unironically yes

>>18540029
Unironically, his industrial policy, something that was otherwise usually given to markets, favored aganist immigrants. Industrial policy involves often trying to move jobs to particular locations or industries, whereas immigration allows workers to move to where opportunities already exist. Basically, he sought to subsidize specific industries that benefitted incumbent workers while reducing the economic advantages that come from labor mobility, trade, and immigration. However, this meant payin gmore money. Trump for reference has continued these policies actually. Oddly enough, progressive industrial policy and right-wing economic nationalism have similiar ends in that regard and run up aganist the same economic forces. They are both appealing to nonconsequential ends, but different ones. A big debate is whether there is a way to have an intelligent industrial policy that can basically use immigrants as fuel for growth or not. The issue might be that economically the price signals may be too noisy to do. Generally, economists are not too fond of industrial policy because it tends to make things less efficient and more expensive for consumers. It is also compared to an addiction because large sectors can become very reliant upon said policies to exist.

https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-neolib-podcast/the-case-for-industrial-policy-ft-noah-smith/

>>18539178
No it’s the result of globalist politicians and left-wing activist groups that hate us

>>18540069
Biden's immigrants didn't come here looking for work. That's what you don't understand.

>>18540071
>Biden's Immigrants™
Is this the bit where you pretend a bunch of guatemalan midgets come here to impose shariah law?

Trump did add to Biden's industrial policies though. He did add tariffs, domestic-content requirements, and strategic protection of key industries. The big controversial one is preference for reshoring production through trade barriers. That through trade barriers part basically means the public are heavily subsidizing certain industries at different levels. making foreign goods more expensive or harder to access. Tariffs, import quotas, local-content requirements, and other restrictions increase the cost of importing products, creating an incentive for firms to manufacture within the country. This besides procurement guarantees to targeted industries.

Tariffs raise prices on imported goods and can increase costs for consumers and firms that rely on imported inputs in a way that hits consumers more directly and often disproproprtionality. Subsidies are funded through government revenue or borrowing and therefore spread costs through taxation or public debt and are a little bit better. From an economist perspective both are very ineffcient. The big issue is that it also makes other countries do that and creates a feedback loop of other countries that messes up and makes everything more inefficient in a recursive way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDQwK1gkO2w

>>18539204
post a source for your image

>>18539178
The colonial "surplus labour" was used to extract the natural resources local to the colonies, this did not change after decolonization as we still get our rubber, oil, spices, gemstones, etc. from the former colonies. Nothing changed in that regard, the thirdies that move here are joining the sectors that had always been in Europe.

>>18540078
No they come here to collect social services and abuse our higher quality of life.
Two countries, one has functional healthcare, a police force which isn’t shamelessly corrupt, and a mostly stable currency, the other doesn’t.
Which one would you rather live in?

>no Whitey here’s why you need to be genocided
Fuck off.
Also “dem immugrubs are dungon do da sharia” I feel like your dad said something like this. Are you the product of a stupid MAGAtard?
Most lefties are millennials spawned by idiot boomers.

>>18540209
Illegal immigrants really can't use your social services and even some naturalized citizenship. The closest thing an illegal immigrant can get is some emergency care but this is pretty worthless as it is for a non illegal. Technicallythey are scammed by paying into services via taxes that they don't collect and can never do so even fi they were to somehow become naturalized. The time just dosen't matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWNGjBkvSAg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KmtqISXboA

If we are being serious, the people who take the most resources as in individuals and not coprorate entities are military individuals who commit veterans' disability-benefit fraud, military pension fraud, We know this because there are literal documentation of this happening.

https://www.vaoig.gov/sites/default/files/document/2026-06/IG%20FRAUD%20WATCH_MAY%202026.pdf

>>18540224

Keep in mind this is just the caught fraud and not even stuff unreported like veterans who often normalize getting disability fraud for injuries. It helps to remember a lot of actual illegal immigrants were created by failures of policy that were done for various reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKHl__BEsD0

Another huge money sinks are property tax subsidization occurs when a government reduces, exempts, rebates, freezes, or otherwise lowers the property taxes that a person, homeowner, business, or developer would normally owe. Economically, the subsidy functions as a transfer from the public sector to the recipient because the recipient pays less in taxes than they otherwise would have paid. Basically, you dump money to some person like business or for freezing someones property taxes.

Common examples include homestead exemptions for homeowners, tax abatements for new developments, property-tax freezes for seniors, and economic-development incentives offered to businesses. That is a lot of money that is not fraud in a legal sense but pretty bad. This is also why regular homeowners end up paying a bill for some corporate entity.

>>18540059
Dilate