I think immigration can be a good thing and you cannot judge people solely based on what country they come from

as long as it is well regulated there are no issues. i don't even take issue with permanent immigration either. If university professor can come here under fair competition which demonstrates that no briton can do the job to same level as him, and can comply with the initially temporary visa requirements - why should he be asked to leave at some arbitrary date that doesn't necessarily align to his contributions here.
Again it is more about having a well-run immigration regime than not having any immigration in my eyes.

As long as immigrants never exceed 5% of the population I have no issues.

I agree. But immigrants should share Britain's judeo-christian values.

this is seems arbitrary to me. What if there was a sudden need for people who could do a particular skill that takes 5 years to learn and no one in the country can do it and we need about 10% of the population to be doing that particular job? why not hire immigrants whilst bolstering our own efforts to learn that skill over the 5 years?

For me it isn't about numbers, so much as it is about people following rules including the rule of when they should leave.

>But immigrants should share Britain's judeo-christian values.
there is no plausible way you could ever enforce this in my mind. firstly what are britain's judeo-christian values? secondly if a professor new york happens to be a gay atheist who is very interested in cambodian culture - why should we turn him away in favour of a devout ethiopian christian who is a lesser ranked professor?

"Immigrants" go the fuck home or die. Sweden for the Swedes and Europe for Europeans

>what are britain's judeo-christian values
judeo-chrisitian values are western values, such as gay pride parades, single motherhood and free speech.

That is fine, but you can still have immigration. For example seasonal agriculture workers or students. Those are both pretty easy groups of immigrants to regulate and keep temporary.

>As long as immigrants never exceed 5% of the population I have no issues.
That's how it starts, reasonable and small. Then the chain migration meme makes irreversible changes.

basadao

>chain immigration
not really. if your immigrants are strictly seasonal workers on a limited number of permits working out in the middle of nowhere for farmers, you can't really get chains of immigration.

it is actually quite easy to regulate immigration and many countries do this.

> if your immigrants are strictly seasonal workers on a limited number of permits
Name a single western country like that

>it is actually quite easy to regulate immigration and many countries do this.
Only if you have a country with reasonable discussion of immigration; the US, large parts of Europe, and Canada are certainly not in that group.

Same. As long as it's legal and they're not jumpin borders.

>legal
Umm sweaty, nobody is illegal

>Name a single western country like that
New Zealand has the recognised seasonal worker scheme that temporarily takes in pacific islanders to work in agriculture iirc, it rewards them with the ability to come back again for more seasons if they comply with the rules during their stay.
the UK used to have a seasonal agricultural worker program again for people coming to help out on farms.
Australia has working holiday visas which break up the amount of time you can spend with a particular employer.
>reasonable discussion
i agree, but i imagine we're alluding to different things. Most people seem to conflate immigration with permanent immigration. most people tend to do a 'partial equilibrium' analysis of immigration as lowering wages rather than doing what economists call a more 'general equilibrium' analysis which causes other impacts.
unfortunately policy has been quite erratic on immigration, but it doesn't have to be. it doesn't require a rocket scientist to ensure that immigration systems are strict but fair.

I wasn't asking which countries have temporary work permits or seasonal visas, I was asking for a country where immigration is almost entirely temporary visa workers or seasonal workers.

All those countries you named have millions of other types of immigrants.

Attached: 14975226831480.png (339x478, 33K)

I am not in principle opposed to people permanently migrating. For example if i landed a gig as a university lecturer in canada and the university wanted to keep me and i had complied with the immigration requirements - would you be particularly opposed to me becoming more formally settled?

Canada is a meme country, I don't mind immigration in principle. But the way this country, and various other western countries, handles immigration is completely retarded.

Immigration shouldn't be viewed as a charity or human right, but people intentionally conflate immigration and illegal immigration for various reasons.

The whole notion of the nation state is farcical.

No nation states = no immigration, problem solved.

Percentage on wellfare in the Netherlands based on country of origin.
Note that these are not unemployment benefits, but the minimum standard of living of long term unemployed people.

Attached: Bijstand.jpg (740x620, 41K)

How many times an ethnicity is more criminal than the national average (unorganized crime).
The top one is people from the "Dutch Antilles".
The second one says "Other Africa".

Attached: Misdaad.gif (360x356, 9K)

on a different line of reasoning - the UK's current immigration policy is very strict (excluding for EU migrants) if you're trying to come here to work.
Easier if you come here to study but that is a very much temporary arrangement and a microscopic amount of students actually stay on.
If you manage to meet all the UK's requirements to work here (£30k, sponsored employer, potentially on a shortage list, and complying with home office requirements) and stick it out for 5 years - honestly i can't see the need in blocking you from staying permanently.

The key difference is that people seem to confuse past immigration policy for current immigration policy. In the 2000s it was very easy to stay in the UK and lots of people settled far more whimsically than these days. However tightening immigration doesn't affect people who have already settled. In my mind immigration should be primarily driven by labour market requirements and economic interests. I don't think it is a charity or a human right, but at the end of the day it is people and so if someone can reasonably demonstrate their worth to a country over a long enough period of time i am happy to call them one of my own.

The presence of Somalians is a pretty good indicator a country needs to reform it's immigration system.

Attached: germany-immigrant-crime-rates.jpg (6318x1280, 1.49M)

see i don't think this is proof against immigration in its totality. I think this is just proof against a badly designed immigration system (in the 70s to my understanding Germany and The Netherlands simply failed to enforce their own immigration rules and then just allowed temporary migrants to stay on - this is not a failure of immigration but of enforcing your own policy).

We barely get any black Africans here desu (that aren't from the Caribbean). We have shielded ourselves by surrounding us with France, Belgium, Germany and Sweden. They never manage to pass those countries.

see

0,23% Somalians.

Attached: demografie.jpg (893x818, 246K)

0.23% too many. Genuinely think they're the worst group.

They are. They are hideous, sit at home and chew qat all day.

>the UK's current immigration policy is very strict (excluding for EU migrants) if you're trying to come here to work.
So is Canada's and honestly the system works mostly well except for family reunification, but it's 2019 so we need to accept illegal immigrants from the USA.

The problem with our system is that you have to work hard and stay for a long time to come here legally but some retard who has already immigrated can sponsor his grandparent/cousin/brother/mom etc. to come here and contribute nothing just because he already lives here.

Chain migration completely defeats the purpose of skilled immigration

Attached: Montreal welfare.jpg (496x850, 80K)

give me 1 reason NOT to immigrate

>system works mostly well except for family reunification
we've actually made family reunification quite a bit more difficult. In fact i am actually against some of the family reunification rules because they seem to arbitrarily split certain families up (for example a British person who doesn't earn much but their immigrant spouse may earn a lot in the UK but it depends on the British person's income not the family income - so they may be ineligible to live with their kids in the UK).

>retard already immigrated can sponsor
can't really do that here so easily anymore here.
the thing is even if you said the UK has a good immigration system no one would agree because they would look at all the migrants who came from the 1950s-2000s and say 'yeah but what about them?' as though having strict visa rules in 2019 can stop someone who settled and became a citizen in 1953.

weather is probably better in tunisia

Attached: D7iSJoUWsAAEBMr.jpg (1078x328, 86K)

this again isn't an argument. you can literally bake into an immigration policy that a migrant cannot use public services without paying or obtain public funds.

You see, this is the difference between somewhere sort of rational like Denmark and Leafland. They would never publish or even investigate something like that here because that's anti-multicult

This

In the Netherlands an asylum seeker costs money money to maintain, than the average household income earns before taxes.

Migration here (the costs of public services and tax revenue) cost 8 billion euro a year. Although I have to note, that the economic benefit could theoretically be much higher than the 8 billion it costs society.
But I believe you should strive to make every migrant profitable.

Denmark has been doing a lot of crazy shit lately
I agree with you

Attached: D-0Fj-vU8AAklBB.png (706x654, 275K)

I am not saying that immigration is always good. I am just saying you can do immigration well and sustainably.
In fact I think immigration is a great tool for building diplomatic relations between developing and developed countries where migrants can earn money and gain skills to bring back to their home country whilst making the host country more efficient in production and giving them closer ties on governmental and economic levels.
Immigration does not even have to be particularly cruel with things like temporariness. For example I wouldn't mind some flexibility for a skilled person to move between different employers in his field rather than being tied here.

Topkek

Good thing there so many gullible people aka sheep out there.

youtube.com/watch?v=EmqbtyfQ3f8

It allows us NEETs and the wealthy ones to live a comfortable life.

Attached: 1550259697554.png (500x401, 74K)

The blue line is the percentage of economic migrants that work, after X amounts of years in the Netherlands.
The red line is the percentage of asylum seekers that work, after X amount of years in the Netherlands.

So after 15 years about 35% of the refugees have a job.
And more than half of the economic migrants, that came here by getting a job, have become unemployed.

Attached: Werk.png (397x698, 182K)

denmark and the netherlands don't have normal immigration systems. in fact we are not really talking so much about immigration in the normal sense and more about migrant descended populations (turks, surinamers, moroccans) and asylum seekers/refugees (syrians/afghans).

These aren't really the same thing as people coming on visas to work - and are sort of out of the scope for what i am discussing today. not that they aren't valid concerns but they actually adhere to a different set of policies and concerns as compared with economic/study migrants.

>I am just saying you can do immigration well and sustainably.
I agree completely, but immigration has become a social/moral issue here as opposed to a rational policy issue.

They abuse our welfare, use public education and free healthcare, they get their degrees and then they jump back to their country of origin or somewhere else.

Then there are the criminals who go back to their country if the cops are close to catching them. So for example, they rape someone here and then they run away back to Peru or some other Andean shithole.

The way our country handles immigration is retarded. We already have half a million Venezuelans living here. As if properties weren't already expensive enough, or as if the job market wasn't crowded enough.

They are smarter than the average braindead whitoid shit (aka voting cattle).

Get free money without work or work and get 30% of your wage taken away from you.

Attached: 1471665217919.png (1437x908, 103K)

I don't even know how this is possible to be honest. why does anyone work in the netherlands if welfare pays better than albert heijn?

Unemployment benefits are 70% of your last wage, which you get temporarily.
The basic welfare is 70% of the minimum wage (although you also get money for rent, insurance, kids, social housing, etc).

> economic/study migrants

They have never been the issue, they have to undergo rigid procedure until they are granted right to stay.

This clown world of nowadays just disregard borders and laws and ship FOB African apes to Europe and are regarded as heroes.

on both sides of the spectrum

I suppose europe has substantially different issues with migration (almost solely down to geography) as compared with the UK.

It's true. Each country has different issues and different ethnic groups to deal with.

But the odd thing is, that France, Germany, the UK, the Benelux, Sweden and so on all have similar amounts of migrants. Despite the drastic differences between the groups we get. So it seems fairly orchestrated.

Lmao, they get to Britain too, easy path from France.

i am dying of heat
even walking twenty metres outside is a chore

yes but britain hasn't really taken in that many asylum seekers in the grandscheme of things.
way more EU migrants and non-EU students/workers.
>orchestrated
not really in that the biggest category of migrants we get these days are students from outside the EU who are here on a strictly temporary basis.
whereas continental europe is dealing with large numbers of asylum seekers - but relatively few non-EU 'normal rules' migrants.

The people in line look like chads and the racist scaremongering freaks have pictures showing they're soy guzzling virgins

here's a study showing how selective immigration is (by educational attainment) in different countries

Attached: D6WAW8RXoAAMJ3n.jpg (905x871, 146K)

Italian immigrants in Belgium and Germany have way less education than Italians in Italy, same with Mexicans in the United States and Turks in Belgium and the Netherlands, but Turks in Germany and Switzerland have better education than Turks back home, generally East Asians and Africans tend to be better off than their counterparts in their home nations, Canada is the only country that tends to select all immigrants with more education than the immigrants' own countries

Attached: D6V-S08XsAUbvNM.jpg (1200x572, 84K)

good night!

Relax Adewale, your benefits are still in the post

nn mate

>whereas continental europe is dealing with large numbers of asylum seekers - but relatively few non-EU 'normal rules' migrants.
is the number of refugees per capita really that different in the UK compared to other European countries? I don't think so, sure you're not at Sweden or Norway level, but the actual rate it isn't that radically different

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

Attached: chartoftheday_8800_lebanon_has_by_far_the_most_refugees_per_capita_n.jpg (960x684, 152K)

I partially agree.

>gypsies and somalians

It's an easy equation

USA immigrants = quality, highly educated -> brain drains other countries as a result

EU immigrants = barbaric, religious zealots more often than not, uneducated, low inhibition males -> toilet for the world, the original countries are glad to get rid of their waste

Attached: Eu+is+shit.jpg (900x399, 73K)

I... Agree.