Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing (Post 12148416)

Where did I say that?

Originally Posted by DigitalGhost (Post 12148468)

Essentially, do you think that a country should admit immigrants or refugees even if it is to that nation's own detriment?

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly (Post 12148462)

Do you seriously think anyone cares a toss about such petty Eu regulations anymore ? :rofl:

Originally Posted by DigitalGhost (Post 12148468)

You didn't. It was just that you mentioned exclusionary nationalism so I'm interested in your opinion.

Essentially, do you think that a country should admit immigrants or refugees even if it is to that nation's own detriment?

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly (Post 12148462)

Do you seriously think anyone cares a toss about such petty Eu regulations anymore ? :rofl:

Originally Posted by DigitalGhost (Post 12148468)

You didn't. It was just that you mentioned exclusionary nationalism so I'm interested in your opinion.

Essentially, do you think that a country should admit immigrants or refugees even if it is to that nation's own detriment?

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing (Post 12148543)

Look at this edgy mother****er. I bet he even pretended he went outside and spoke to real people today as well.



I mentioned unchecked, exclusionary nationalism. Countries acting in their own interest while still maintaining a humanitarian perspective isn't the same as saying "we're the best and screw everyone else, even if it is due to our actions in some way that they are displaced and homeless".

I think it's an incredibly disingenuous thing to say that admitting immigrants and refugees is objectively detrimental and if I were more of an arsehole than I already am, I might make a suggest that it is hiding a very thin veil of racism, or at least xenophobia.

The 'my country, right or wrong' attitude; people who think a debt of gratitude is owed to a strip of land just because that's where they happened to be born; people who think the needs of the state outrank the needs and rights of the individual. That's what I am opposed to.

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing (Post 12148543)

The 'my country, right or wrong' attitude; people who think a debt of gratitude is owed to a strip of land just because that's where they happened to be born; people who think the needs of the state outrank the needs and rights of the individual. That's what I am opposed to.

Originally Posted by DaveLovesDee (Post 12148491)

The EU will care, and so should the UK. Because if the UK can't follow the rules, then why should the EU when it comes to our Brexit negotiations?

But all the Leavers will focus on is the EU being difficult, not the UK government being idiots.

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly (Post 12148589)

It's obviously escaped your notice, many other Eu member countries are now telling the Eu to stick their regulations and orders where the Sun don't shine.

Originally Posted by DaveLovesDee (Post 12148607)

Many? And what's the S*n got to do with it?



It's a good job you're not on our Brexit negotiating team.

EU member states can discuss things with each other as much as they want to, but until the UK exits the EU, it is still subject to the rules it agreed to.

Originally Posted by DaveLovesDee (Post 12148491)

The EU will care, and so should the UK. Because if the UK can't follow the rules, then why should the EU when it comes to our Brexit negotiations?

But all the Leavers will focus on is the EU being difficult, not the UK government being idiots.

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing (Post 12148543)

I think it's an incredibly disingenuous thing to say that admitting immigrants and refugees is objectively detrimental and if I were more of an arsehole than I already am, I might make a suggest that it is hiding a very thin veil of racism, or at least xenophobia.

Originally Posted by Dick Dasterdly (Post 12148613)

Obviously you're in favour of stifling free speech, though the Eu have no way of knowing what is being discussed anyway, so it's all rather pointless.

Much as nobody has a clue what is discussed in secret behind closed doors by the Eu Commision as they decide what form of catastrophe to inflict on the already long suffering member states next.

:cool:

Originally Posted by DigitalGhost (Post 12148633)

I think there are obviously different degrees of immigration. Skilled immigration benefits society and the economy and is an example of positive immigration. Refugees and illegals represent negative immigration.

I'm would question the view of anyone that a country should be completely sealed from any type of immigration as much as you would however I also strongly believe that any immigration that takes place should be to the benefit of the local population. What the UK has seen over the last decade has sadly largely been the opposite of that.

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing (Post 12148754)

I was allowed to enter the US solely because I was engaged to a US citizen. That's it. I have no in-demand skills, I am not formally educated beyond a few years in university that went nowhere. There is nothing that I do, or can do that American couldn't already take care of. But even with all that, they let me in and now I sit here a naturalized US citizen after almost 12 years of residence - a lower-middle class relative nobody who keeps to himself and pays his taxes but in general doesn't really make much of a net difference either way to the US as a whole. Whereabouts in your 'degrees of immigration' do I provide some kind of a net positive benefit to the US? It can't just be that I'm white and come from Western Europe, can it?