It doesn't make sense to me

If the mass immigration of foreigners into Europe is justified as a method of reparation for former times of colonialism, how come many of the targets of immigration had not been former colonial powers in those respective countries?

Countries with no history of imperialism outside Europe but are migration destinations.
>Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Ireland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Austria, Greece
Countries with history of imperialism outside Europe, but destinations of majority of immigrants that are NOT necessarily from their former colonies
>Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Italy
Countries with significant history of imperialism, but NOT destinations of immigrants
>Turkey

Attached: Colonisers vs Colonised.png (1472x1264, 94K)

You're missing the actual destinations, they're strictly nations that were belligerent to the soviets. People smuggling is a collaboration of ex communists and Islamic radicals with oil money from people who want a lucrative profit without investing in something haram like drugs.

Attached: netmigrationrateworld.png (680x298, 89K)

Don't be fooled: the whole rethoric of immigrations as revenge for colonialism is a leftist hate ideology.

Poland , Czech , Slovakia , Hungary , Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania are migration destination ?
hahahahahah give me a break those are shitholes and no different from migrant countries

>he follows liberal dogma

Why hide your italian flag, you cringy larper?

Because I believe in Allah and I'm a muslim now. Defintely Not a larper.

Do you love Black cock now since you converted?

American Jews need the whole world to be like Brazil so American industry can compete. Europe is the easy target. Remember Europe hasn't really been self-governing since WWII. Those governments you see are kept in (((line)))

Because that is just an excuse and the reality it's nothing to do with that but instead is to do with wiping out Europeans and creating the Africanized Goyim.

No. South asian muslim females YES

But Allah is much more important than having a wife.

true. all green countries in pic related are shitholes, all red countries receive shitskins

Attached: gdp map.png (3015x2359, 990K)

kys filthy moroccan

I'm northern Italian.

being a traitor is worse than being a foreigner

Jow Forums has a misconeception of what colonialism was
very few people from the UK for example actually lived in India. It would either be soldiers who would get to periodically go back to England (to exert the ruling nations power) or high ranking officials and their families who had a staff consisting almost entirely of natives. Natives telling other natives to go mine this or farm this and bring it to them so they can send it to English ports and back to London.
As a result there are no real large expat populations in most colonized countries (SA being an exception).
Resources from the poor lands for cheap for more profits.
Modern immigration is the same thing, except now the rulers don't need gems but manpower and influence.
It's the continuation of colonization and just hurts the countries they're trying to help, unless the country is stable and strong enough already to take advantage of having a lot of ethnic nationals living in an enemies borders (China, Mexico if they ever get rid of drug cartels)

agree, shitskins are just born subhuman, but traitors will hang from lamp posts

Hey, Southern Italy has been muttville forever because of port cities
although the north hasn't and that's why it has most of the renissaince culture and bueatiful cities

You don't scare me motherfucker!

>Countries with no history of imperialism outside Europe but are migration destinations.
>Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Greece
uhhhhh