top | item 18338067

(no title)

Fuxy | 7 years ago

You're right it doesn't but everyone seems to assume it will which is quite baffling.

discuss

order

kranner|7 years ago

You seem to be looking at the economic payoff alone, whereas others are talking about the intrinsic payoff, i.e., that it is worthwhile to help refugees even if it's a net economic loss.

Fuxy|7 years ago

No I'm looking at the big picture and given the amount of refugees allowed in it is a major loss economically and culturally in the short term and quite likely in the long term as well.

The US did immigration right before only allowing in people when there was a need for workers and only allow predominantly cultures that would attempt to integrate and get along with the existing population.

The current policy allows unregulated areas (no go zones) to exist where the refugees make the laws; police are afraid to go in and they are not required to integrate into society plus their cultural and religious beliefs create a propensity for hostility against the locals/infidels.

Honestly it's a powder keg waiting to explode and given the rise of terrorist attacks in Europe it's getting there at a short and steady pace. It will take generations before their views will be moderate enough for them to be able to get along with the local population and the higher the amount of people and the longer they are kept in their echo chamber the longer it will take.

In the mean time we will see a rise in draconian Sharia law type laws since they will represent a considerable amount of the voting population just like in the UK. See Lauren Southern held under terrorism act for social experiment [1]

Mind you the UK allowed the change to be gradual and their local Muslim population is quite moderate over all yet this is still happening.

[1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJt7oZSONiU)

Anybody see the irony of a weak white canadian girl held under a terrorism act for distributing a bunch of fliers with some text on it?