Can someone give me a quick rundown on this whole "we need migrants because the birth rate is declining" narrative

And they turn into werewolves under the full moon. And they make milk go bad faster. Fucking immigrants.

Yep. Time for them to go back so I can enjoy some raw milk again.

>quick rundown

If they cared about population growth, the most obvious would be to pursue policies which encourage and foster population growth among the natives.

So why do they jump from that most obvious solution all the way to the hassle of importing people from the 3rd World? Why go so far out of their way?

Because they don't want natives, especially Whites, to be the ones who turn that birth rate around. They want 3rd World people, generally low in IQ, to be the ones who do that. Those people generally vote Lefty, despite their very conservative or even outright barbaric cultures. Latinos for instance are very conservative in that they usually hate homosexuality and abortion, but they vote Left because free shit. Same for other peoples.

The ominous "They" create problems in the shadows and offer the solutions in the light. They implement programs and laws which create problems, sometimes by design, sometimes not. So they patch that bug, the patch fails, so the patch is patched, then that patch fails, and so on. Eventually you have more people on each side clamoring for more Government power to fix the problems created by the solutions offered to the problems that were created by the solutions to the problem etc ad nauseum.

In that process, liberty slowly dies.

Trump is no savior, but I guarantee if Clinton had won, she and the Dems would have legalized millions of Latino immigrants and imported even more, which given their general tendency to vote Left, would have effectively made the United States of America a one-party nation.

>If they cared about population growth, the most obvious would be to pursue policies which encourage and foster population growth among the natives.

I don't know who "they" are, but if you mean the governments, they generally do. I live in the fucking immigration heaven that is Germany and even our government has a number of policies, e.g. ridiculous tax cuts if you get married due to the prospect of you getting children and progressive "money for having children" subsidies.

>I'll steal less from you if you give us fresh children to enslave
>But if you don't I'll import a horde of third world savages

Wonderful incentives.

Too little, too late. Those programs are token efforts and they have also been deemed racist.

Meanwhile your peaceful, tolerant new Caliphate is paid out the ass to breed, rape, and murder your fellow Germans.

It's sad you fall so far in such a relatively short time. The Nazis had the wrong idea, but god damn at least they had pride and self-respect.

>tfw you will never be in a Hitler Youth program and meet cute girls, one of whom would be your first love

Not saying I like our most recent policy, but saying that the state is not pursuing policies to incentivise native demographic growth is factually incorrect.

> So why do they jump from that most obvious solution all the way to the hassle of importing people from the 3rd World? Why go so far out of their way?

It's cheaper to take in an adult, with perhaps a specialised skill/education, than it is to raise a native child.

The immigrant might start working immediately, perhaps in a well paying industry (e.g. doctor, or tech) and start producing, and paying taxes immediately. All the hard work of raising the immigrant was a burden on the country of origin.

Contrast this with a "native" child. You will need to raise them for at least 18 years, perhaps longer if a specialised skills/education is required. Finally, this native might not even fill the industries that need people (e.g. doctors)

While it may be factually incorrect it's practically incorrect. Have you ever heard of someone choosing to have children because of those incentives? If those benefits are not affecting change they're not really incentives.

*practically correct

>It's cheaper to take in an adult, with perhaps a specialised skill/education, than it is to raise a native child.

>specialized skill or education

These immigrants don't have any marketable skills or education. Many are illiterate in their own native language. Even if they had skills and education and were fluent in the tongue of their host nation, so many are brought in at a time that the local job markets could accommodate a fraction of them at best.

So they get on welfare and drain the coffers further. There was a riot a few months ago, I think it was in Sweden, and the cause was that the immigrants were mad that they had no jobs and only had apartments instead of houses.

I don't know about Europe, but in the U.S, for the same cost of moving 10,000 of them over here, you can re-settle 122,000 in the Middle East, like in Saudi Arabia which has a tent city equipped with electricity, plumbing, etc and a capacity of millions...but it's empty.

They would be in Muslim nations with Muslim language and culture, AND over 10 times as many of them would be saved. It is objectively the superior plan in every respect...but they insist on moving them into Europe at far greater cost both to Europe and the migrants themselves.

Why? Apparently because they want the West to become a new Muslim Caliphate. This is the only logical reason for these fiscally and socially disastrous policies. They go so far out of their way to avoid the superior plan.

/pol, go!

This. It only matters to keep the gibs going. If there were no gibs government wouldn't give a shit about manipulating population much like it didn't in the 19th century.

Yes multiculturalism is a meme.

And it has brought censorship in sweden, I can show you proof if u like.

Soros is mostly responsible for accelerating liberalism and pushing this migrant agenda.

It probably has economic reasons as well as some anons above have stated, more workers who can then be taxed.

Not sure what Soros his motives are but it does create serious tension between left and right.

And as a result nationalistic politicians get elected.

But the migrants don't want to work. So they basically gained 0 workers for every retiree.

In fact it's even worse because they keep draining the retiree money by collecting govt gibs and doing nothing.

Basically what said.

Did he say anything wrong?

Your average European might now care about the race of the migrant. But they sure do care that these people are lazy and just using them for their money. On top of that they are extremely ungrateful.

Its because people treat them like they are weak people who need to be helped.

They get a victim mentality and manipulate people into getting what they want.

And I dont blame em, its the feminists and leftish politicians who create this narrative.

They don't even need to manipulate people because the people have already been manipulated up to this point.

They can behead someone in broad daylight and yell "we'll kill you all" but natives would just be like "aww poor souls, they don't know any better."

I guess it'll have to get much worse before people wake up.

Another aspect is that government wants increasing citizenry so that their tax base can naturally expand.

With Western Governments all running massive defecits, any increased tax income is good. For this it helps them if immigrants come over, pay tax, pop out a few children, whom will in future also pay tax.

Its a myth that people keep parroting.

The government lacks the finances to sustain baby boomers who havent saved for their pensions, cant afford their medical bills and havent gotten enough kids to pay it for them.
So the next generation has to pay for the baby boomers. And this is correct and what the myth is based on.

But as many migrants end up in the welfare system they just increase the government's expenses.
Even if they get a job with a median wage they will still be net receivers of government money as progressive taxes ensure only a small percentage in society pays more taxes than they cost.
So due to the way our tax system works (especially here in Europe) we have made it impossible for migrants to contribute to the finances of the government. So they just increase the problem.

There are also other factors you could consider when allowing people to immigrate of course. In international politics more people is more power. Even net tax receivers can be contributors to the economy. And migrants cause crime. And dense populations can cause housing shortages, crime, cultural friction and environmental problems. But these things usually arent discussed as often.

I already know about the Ministry of Truth in Sweden.

Clinton, Soros's right hand, was the one behind Gaddafi's death and the fall of Libya. Their currency was backed by gold and was a threat to the dominance of the U.S Dollar on the African continent and Libya was a barrier to the 3rd World savages that now torment Europe. So he was disposed of when he became a problem. He was an obstruction to immigration and was not playing by the international bankers rules.

And Libya's gold? Disappeared shortly afterward. Then Rothschild style interest-generating banks replaced the old, non-interest generating banks. Convenient.

Soros is a sociopath. Here on 60 Minutes:

youtube.com/watch?v=8ZhIrYxOQsI

Gaddafi warning the World:

youtube.com/watch?v=NLflLdIJeMw

>It probably has economic reasons as well as some anons above have stated, more workers who can then be taxed.

They aren't working and they consume more taxes than they generate, as well as mass public property damage.

It only makes sense if their goal is more of what is happening; more chaos, more violence, more debt, less White people, and the death of Western Civilization and its subsequent replacement with a new Muslim Caliphate of people with a lower average IQ than native Whites.

Their future is like Dredd, but with everyone mulatto, dumb and poor.

A declining birth rate means less people in the work force that pay for the pensions of the growing elderly population. It can also lead to a decline in productivity. This is bad if your overall goal is economic growth. With mass immigration you are trying to bolster the work force and create more tax payers that "should" guarantee that you are also getting your pension once you retire. Obviously this is all based on the assumption that the migrants are skilled, will assimilate quickly, are willing to work and will not be a drain on your welfare system. Another thing to keep in mind: While a declining population / work force usually does lead to a declining productivity it does so at a lower rate (productivity goes down slower). Basically, the GDP goes down, but the GDP per capita goes up. With mass immigration (under ideal circumstances) you expect the GDP to go up (muh economic growth), but GDP per capita goes down.

Why is constant growth the goal? We live inna finite world. Until interstellar travel is feasible is only when constant, unbounded growth can and should be attained

To remain competetive in the global economy

Unsustainable by definition

It is unsustainable, just like the pension system in it's current form (e.g. here in Germany). The point is to keep the machine going as long as possible before it breaks down and everything collapses.

Yolo

These migrants don't work though, they just suck up welfare on the tax payers dime which just makes everyone in the working class poorer

that's not even an argument to be made, we don't bring in migrants to save old people, we do it for two reasons:
1) Cheap labor for Conservatives
2) More voters for Liberals

Realistically, a decline in population is supposed to go hand in hand with a rise in automation. Its the natural progression of human society, but the aforementioned groups are fucking up the natural order

Have I heard of people marrying to get tax cuts? Have I heard of people deciding to have children after getting married? What kind of question is that?

We're going to have to deal with lower fertility rates at some point. It'll probably mean rioting and famine, but politicians want to postpone it.

I've met people who purchased homes, purchased cars, installed solar panels, moved businesses, and given away tens of thousands of dollars because of incentives.

I've never met a person who had a kid because of incentives. My tax break for insulating my attic was bigger than my tax break for having a kid. It's not a fucking incentive if nobody is incentivized to change their behavior because of it.

The german pension system was etablished by bismarc in 1890.

you aren´t saving for your retirement,
you pay the retirement of your parents
and your kids pay your retirements.

If you get less than 2 kids you have to relate on the money from other people kids,
so our system only works if the population grows or stays constant.

But now the people have not enought kids any more.

>Why does it matter if there is a decrease in population? Who gives a shit if baby boomers are empoveroahed in their old age?

We NEED a larger tax paying base... and we NEED that tax paying base to GROW...

Or else we are fucked up the ass.

>We NEED a larger tax paying base... and we NEED that tax paying base to GROW...
>Or else we are fucked up the ass.

By 2040, we won't be able to afford all those nice social services 'Mericans have come to depend on.

2040 = SHIT hitting the fan.

Unfortunately the welfare and pension systems need to be sustained so the boomers can have their fucking money to retire. The answer to this is to bring in as many foreigners and other immigrants to pay taxes. This has almost backfired as now we end up paying more for these foreigners healthcare, welfare, and to lock up the criminals. The deficit is huge.

There are booms and busts in population growth all the time. This whole "low birth rate" is a fucking guise to pull the wool over your eyes because the politicians have ulterior motives.

The difference between the economic system most of the world runs on and a ponzi scheme is that bankruptcies exist. If bankruptcies didn't exists it would literally be a ponzi scheme. This is why those with capital seem to find making more money easy but those without seem to be stuck in perpetual poverty.

The narrative also conflicts with other narratives.
>those jobs aren't coming back
>all the jobs are going to be automated
>they are doing the jobs the native population don't want to do

If the economic growth rate is low and all the jobs are not coming back I don't see how we need more migrants. Also, there is a housing problem that is not being solved. Either western governments are lying, or they are completely asleep at the wheel.

I hate the "but all the jobs are automated!!" argument

That's why they move to Mexico and Bangladesh, right? For the superior robots? Jesus Christ.

>migrants = boat people XD

No, seriously, if the moment anyone brings up anything related to immigration you think of muzzies raping white women you need to take a break from the internet.

This is the narrative that the Jews push to encourage their puppet globalists to adopt easy immigration policies.

>if I close my eyes, maybe it will go away

Safe space apologists are the worst.

See the thing about our pension system is that our politicians knew very well that it was not sustainable if there were no reforms. They knew that 20 years ago, probably knew it even before then. So the question is why let it get so bad that the only way to keep it afloat is to import millions of people? You can not blame ignorance, so they either knew it and didn't do anything about it, because they didn't "care", or they knew it and flooding this country with foreign people was their intention.

>Apparently because they want the West to become a new Muslim Caliphate. This is the only logical reason for these fiscally and socially disastrous policies.
and this is where it goes from reasonable to tinfoil

it is obvious why they don't want them there
they are the dregs of society and the house of saud has no reason to accommodate that filth
same story with the palestinians

So many "but migrants don't pay taxes" when the simplest irrefutable retort is "migrants also age", meaning that the ageing population problem is only postponed, and with a much bigger bang at the end. Fucking disgusting Veeky Forums, get your shit together

They also reproduce more.

>If they cared about population growth, the most obvious would be to pursue policies which encourage and foster population growth among the natives.
not that it hasn't been tried it simply doesn't work. even with very serious tax benefits and housing aids they couldn't turn the number of births up a tiny bit in my country.

Migrants== malleable workers. You can litterally choose which jobs you assign to them. So (((they))) can fill the "holes" in the job market.

This.
It's just a wallstreet meme. More workers help the 0.1%. They don't help you. It doesn't matter if the GDP goes up a few points if all the gains go to the top, like they have sense the 70s.
>let's have no stablistion of the population and grow forever, what could go wrong. Hurrdurr
And birth rates are not stable overtime, as the middleclass comes back they will naturally start having more kids as long as you don't keep displacing them with foreigners.

> Who gives a shit if baby boomers are empoveroahed in their old age?

the baby boomers that run your government. our generation will go down in history as the cucked generation

it's like people saying they don't care about global warming because it will be their offspring's problem. except that's us

It's a meme, old people are not expensive to take care of

>Social Security and Government Pension Ponsi scheme
>It only works if there are new people paying in

Pretty much every governing body in the US is fucked over by unfunded liabilities that are 10 times what it can cover with taxes. And it's 100 times worst in liberal cities.

This is a myth , stop getting your news from rubart, who has a agenda

america shipped in niggers for cheap/free labor
same idea with migrants, cheap labor

They spend fuck all whilst needing constant medication and round the clock care.

I saw a post on /pol/ yesterday from some Australian faggot, talking about the Islamic credit system in comparison to (((Western Banking)))

He was saying under our system we have a 25-30 year loan where at 6% the profit margin for $100k is $60k and the lendee discharges.

But in Comparison under Islamic loans there's no usury so they do profit share for the life of the business. And for $100,000 loan of capital the gross profit at 6% being $500 per month means the Lender gets $75k at a 50% profit split over the same period- however this load lasts for life say 50 or 75 years instead of 25 or 30.

I'd never thought about it, but the muslim lending model reaps for larger profits for lenders, and that Strayan shitposting dickhead maybe onto something by them wanting to be rid of the Jew/Anglo credit model.
The irony of seeing /pol/ defend Jews is not lost on me, they're quite odd over there.

Just like women

no ponzi scheme can sustain itself with no growth. they need more retards feeding the system, or everything will fall apart

>it's too expensive to manufacture goods in the West
>better to produce them in the third world, where it costs nothing, and ship them to the West

>it's too expensive to raise a child in the West
>better to produce them in the third world, where it costs nothing, and ship them to the west

It's the exact same line of thought.

>implying you aren't that Aussie just shilling your own post and opinions

Every euro country wants migrants because all they have to do to create growth is give them welfare. They literally do not lose anything by printing monopoly money and giving it out in return that money is re circulated also these migrants can open lines of credit eventually causing more growth.

Eve if she is he rite

Tru dat

incredible proof there pal.

This