I've heard some people here saying it's hypocritical to support refugees coming to our country but also say African...

I've heard some people here saying it's hypocritical to support refugees coming to our country but also say African countries today have problems because the arbitrary borders mixed ethno-religious groups that didn't have any intent or want to be mixed together. I'll explain it simply to dispel the myth that they're the same situation:

Country A is mainly comprised of Group 1. Groups 2 and 3 immigrated to Country A peacefully. Groups 1,2, and 3 never had conflict before this mass immigration.

Country B was created by Country A and is mainly comprised of Group 4 and 5. Groups 4 and 5 have hated each other for centuries due to a multitude of issues including war and famine. Country A decided to ignore this issue and make them one country instead of two.

Do you see how this might create problems? It's like if the US made Poland and Germany one country after WW2. It's idiotic.

no no don't you understand? Europeans are advanced and enlightened, only primitive dumb brown people need homogeneous nations

>European colonialism coexisting
>not the elites draining the resources of the brown people

>arbitrary borders

let me explain why your argument that this position is hypocritical doesn't hold water

In a modern western state you have well functioning institutions, civil society, and rule of law already in place. In precolonial societies (generalizing a bit) you may have already had some of these things to a minor degree, but not on the same level. However when the Europeans came this was often demolished in favor of their new order which was concerned with exploiting the region for its natural resources first second and third. Actual development of the colony for the sake of its inhabitants (rather than simply to create markets for manufactured goods) was always considered least concern and got very little investment.

Then when the Europeans left and drew arbitrary borders which put many different ethnic groups with long and complex histories together many new problems arose. Without a well developed civil society and meritocracy you'd have the problem where a member of one ethnic group would get into power and staff the entire government only with people from his ethnic group while giving everyone else scraps. Because of the privileged position of this ethnic group they become fiercely loyal to the current regime (even though they know its unfair) because if the current regime goes they wont just lose their privileges, but other ethnic groups may want to retaliate for their ill treatment.

For a great example of what I just described look at Iraq. There are three ethnic groups in the country, Sunni Arabs - green, Shia Arabs - red, and Kurds (who are sunni) - yellow. The Shia arabs make up the majority of about 65% of the population, the sunni arabs and kurds are about 20 and 15. Saddam was a sunni arab, and despite being the majority the shia were almost entirely locked out of any role in the government under his regime. When he fell this was reversed and a shia dominated government was created that engaged in brutal reprisals against the sunni population.

>uncontrolled mass immigration of unskilled third worlders is negative

Are you Einstein?

forgot my map

anyway, that's a main reason why ISIS was able to take over the sunni sections of Iraq so easily, sunni iraqi civilians were being murdered by their own police and military just as revenge, so is it any surprise they would support ISIS?

In the west though, this is not really a problem as people get work based on their merits not based on their ethnoreligious background. That's why diversity is our strength in the west, but in a failed state it only causes chaos.

asylum seekers is not the same as immigrants
with immigrants there's a degree of selection

asylum seekers, there isn't

The argument in the OP was that it isn't hypocritical. What solid data is there of diversity being positive (by any metric) anyway?

>It's like if the US made Poland and Germany one country after WW2

Well, they made Prussia into Poland. And they made Hungary into like 4 other countries after WW1.

What's your point again

1/3 of british doctors are foreign born

Was there a shortage of British doctors when the UK was primarily native born? I've heard that hospital care has taken a nosedive in recent decades.

apparently, if those people found a job
doctors still complain they have too much work
and they have a point

population is aging

well that's not something that's so easily quantifiable, but personally as an American I think its nice to live in a very cosmopolitan city that has significant populations of many ethnoreligious groups to get access to their unique cuisines, culture, and world view. It's also always been very inspiring to me that no matter where you came from, no matter the color of your skin, ethnicity, or faith, so long as you're a citizen who lives here and loves America you're as American as they come. It's also our cultural heritage, all of my ancestors were immigrants who came from an extremely different culture from the dominant American culture of the time, didn't speak any english, and weren't even christian. Yet today just a few generations later I'm merely a white guy.

As you can see from my chart the process to immigrate is a very difficult and time consuming one indeed, we only take those who have something to offer us and are dedicated to seeing it through.

That's legal immigration of course, my opinions on illegal immigration are quite different.

So you're saying 2/3rds of British doctors are not foreign born?

i went to an international school
can't say I didn't enjoy all the different people
i didn't value it at the time, but met some great people

wish i wasn't such a withdrawn retarded edgelord

>. Actual development of the colony for the sake of its inhabitants (rather than simply to create markets for manufactured goods) was always considered least concern
Even if we grant this as true, tripling the life expectancies of the inhabits, in the case of the brits ending slavery in Western Africa, and building the Suez canal (which, despite what you'll claim, has been a major bone in the region) sure did help them a lot.

Let's take a race as advanced as Europe..let' take Japan. when was the last time Nippon did something for the rest of of the good ness of their hearts? When was the last the any Asian helped the starving Whites in South Africa, or with the massive poverty in Italy?

I doubt you even wrote that user, I've learned most people just copy shit from some sjw. Which, I have to say, I don't see the point in plagiarizing anonymous for to go on an anonymous board. No matter how dumb or intelligent you come off, YOU still know it's plgarausn

How do you have diversity if you make everyone homogenous?

>Let's take a race as advanced as Europe..let' take Japan
europe isn't a race, neither is japan, one is a continent the other is a country
also if nippon had colonized africa we could be able to compare

not him btw

>make everyone homogenous?
what do you mean by this

It's the 21st century. You don't need logic or solutions. Just blame whitey.

Seriously, it works for everything. And anyone who calls you out on it is a racist.

What is your solution to the refugee problem

By forcing populations to mix and accept a global culture. It destroys individuality/diversity.

Yes, everyone knows we have completely peacefully existed with muslims and had zero problems with them or any other refugees

>It destroys individuality/diversity.
It doesn't destroy individuality.

Having Europe accept 100 billion """refugees""" by 2020.

In my opinion, a multiracial state isn't a problem.

The problem is having state that is so balkanized that every 5% of the population have totally different values, and views on how things should be run, and are unwilling to compromise on anything.

>admitting it destroys diversity

Monoculture for the third world, ""diversity"" (cultural usurpation) for the first world!

That's a logical response and a solution.

>>admitting it destroys diversity
I don't care about diversity of looks or races. Only about diversity of minds.

Actual refugees make up a single digit percentage of the people that have gone to Europe.

There's no refugee crisis, it's uncontrolled mass immigration or as I'd like to call it, a European suicide.

What is an actual refugee

A refugee is a displaced person who's forced to leave his or her home and can't return because of safety.

i.e, the moment you cross the border from Syria to Turkey, you're no longer a refugee.

Travelling from Syria to Northern Europe is not being a refugee, that is a economic migrant.

This is basically it. The sooner you realise calls for diversity come from a position that is inherently white supremacist, the better you are able to criticise the state without appeal to spooks and being dishonest with data.

>the border from Syria to Turkey
So according to you they ought to just stay in Syria.

These.

Progressivism is simply a form of condescension.

What if you can't support yourself in your home country because there are practically no jobs or ways to make a living? Are you still an "economic migrant" if you and your family would have starved to death?

Obviously you can be both an economic migrant and a refugee at the same time. The public just doesn't understand that (especially the Western public) because they haven't yet had to experience that kind of economic upheaval.

I like diversity if it's Asians.

Haha the European cluster looks like a dick cumming, how suitable.

They ought to get help in parts of Syria that are not affected by the war or in nearby countries until they can return.

You are not a refugee when you've passed 10 different countries only to get to that one country that for some fucked up reason decides to pay for your life, you're an economic migrant.

Ah, so you are still a refugee if you've arrived in italy spain and greece by boat

i guess problem solved lmao

You are indeed, however the number of refugees arriving in Greece, Italy or Spain are very slim compared to economic migrants.

>very slim
how many

UN estimates I believe are single digit or in the low 10s.

First, don't accept refugees in your own country.

Then, you have options.

1. The Hands-Off Approach. Simply put, you refuse to get involved in any way. That country's problems need to be solved by its own people.

2. The Humanitarian Approach. Send aid shipments and services to assist refugees and keep them from dying. Press for UN involvement to resolve the crisis sooner rather than later.

3. The Full Intervention Approach. You send in the troops and occupy the country until it's fixed.

I recommend the solutions in the above order, generally.

Western powers have been intervening in 3rd World crises for decades, and by and large the 3rd World is not grateful (let alone fixed). Let them work it out on their own, even if it gets bloody sometimes.

Just send money to help them out in Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan.

If they're doing better where they are, they won't get on a boat and try and nig up Europe.

>Asians.
Read that chart again

The only thing you'll help the crazy inbred bastards do is kill each other.