You have a decent example of successful self-sustaining ?
Imo the correct answer was: to let enter a reasonable amount of people with minimal education and will to integrate.



Not if we check the graphes i posted before in this topic, seems conservatives are the new minority.
I will not be surprised if they end up being blamed for their behavior in the past.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on May 2 2022 09:06am

Please tell me more about how those dirty Irish are coming in and stealing our jobs and ruining our culture

And maybe US would have been even greater if they had imported Germanics instead of the Irish.

We did that too. Lol

And it was an excellent decision. Look at how great your country was.

Letting in minimally educated, low-skill migrants made sense back when social welfare systems weren't well-developed and there was a surplus of need for low-skill labor. Europe is facing a situation now where there isn't a great demand for low-skill labor, and social welfare systems are elaborate, expensive, and well entrenched.

The left has the unenviable position of defending both unlimited migration and vast, expensive social welfare schemes. It's an impossible task. You can have one or the other, when combined the natural outcome is bankruptcy.



Irish-American assimilation took place over a period of 150+ years. The Gaelic language was in steep decline by the 19th century, so a large percentage spoke English. And it was pre-Great Society, during a period in which the demand for unskilled labor was particularly high. There really aren't a lot of parallels to what we're talking about today. Proponents of mass immigration today are opponents of assimilation, they support generous welfare benefits, and we're living through a time where unskilled labor is increasingly obsolete.

Well, this remind me only 1 thing: slavery.
Not really, when immigration is reasonable the benefit is real.
you will finish your wall at some point anyway.

a frenchies talking about succesful integration of migrants, lmao, this one is rich :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

this comes up a lot and is generally not approached genuinely. there's an obvious difference between words being slowly changed over time due to context changing, and words changing rapidly for a biased reason to back up partisan politics. pedophile has a specific meaning, but call an opponent that who slept with a 17 year old when they were 22 and it sticks. nazi has a meaning, call them a nazi and it sticks. socialism is a thing that was specific, now any tax expenses mean socialism. most people dont have an issue with words changing slowly with good reason, it's quickly with bad reason that's an issue.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 2 2022 11:48am

This is more about goom going back to the supposed Roman definition of the word Fascism