Was there ever a civilisation as politically correct and pro-refugees as our western one? Did they survived?

>Was there ever a civilisation as politically correct and pro-refugees as our western one?
Rome
Native Americans

>Did they survived?
Nope, they got overran by migrants

That's only because there wasn't any real means to effectively enforce border control til the end of the industrial revolution. But we know nations and empires have always been concerned about borders as far as Senusret III with his boundary stone against the nehsi (nubians) and Hammurabi using his code as boundary stones across his entire empire (hell we only know about his codex precisely elamites literally stole one of his stones on the way back from sacking babylon for the nth time in history).

Why are westweners such cry babies
>fuck up MENA with their oil wars
>cry about muh terrorism when statistically speaking it doesn't even get in the top causes of death
>cry about muh refugees when they are barely taking any both per country and per capita
>still have the guts to claim they're politically correct

>oil in syria
W E W
E
W

Nationalists in the first world desperate to find rally points that won't get them in trouble with their Russian suppliers, news at eleven.

>Resurgence of nationalism in europe is the fruit of russian interference
and just like that the left became reagan

Liberals use it to divide and destroy the world. The people who don't support the aliens coming into the West aren't the same people as the neoliberals and neocons who supported destroying Iraq, Libya and Syria.

The people who promote oil wars and the people negatively affected by mass immigration form two non-overlapping groups.

>Did they survived?
What does this mean? No civilization survives.

stfu ahmed

I was waiting for the
>LMAO ROMANZ IT IS THE EXACT SAME THING AS TODAY DUDE"
post. Rome didn't let in foreigners because they felt bad them for them, they let them in initially because they gave military manpower (something that continued to the very end of course), and because their border defenses got overrun.
The Romans certainly weren't "politically correct", given that they viewed the barbarians, as well, barbarians and who they should be in a position of power and superiority over, and that they were savages who should learn latin and adopt Roman civilization if they wanted to make anything worthwhile of themselves.

Giving the auxilliaries so much military power is definitely part of what did them in. Arming frontier people was beneficial because you kept your citizens working and paying taxes instead of dying on the battlefield. It's not just them though, it's a pattern repeated across the antiquity with egypt(with libyans, kushites and hyksos); hittites (with phregians and cimmerians/lydians); myceneans (with the dorians); babylonians (with kassites, elamites and assyrians); etc. And rome did just that with the germanic tribes.

But that sort of problem isnt relevant nowadays thanks to industrialisation and proto-robotics with drones, mine sweepers and that exoskelton robodoggo they keep showcasing. Also automation will soon make foreign cheap labour pointless so neolibs will also soon stop shilling for it. No need to wish for interesting times for we certainly already live in them.

The ottomans took in a few hundred thousand jews from spain who then turned Selanik from a shitty town to the second most important city in the empire.

>Westerners
Hey don't blame all of us for the shit the US is pulling.

That's true but it's not exactly a representative example since jews were literally the interpreter class of that era. Most refugees coming today are lowskill labour

But that isn't "political correctness". Roman policy vis-à-vis the barbarians wasn't dictated by avoiding offense or not putting them at a disadvantage, which is the basis of political correctness, but rather precisely the opposite. The Romans cannot be used as an example of political correctness with immigration because migration into the Roman Empire didn't exist because of political correctness, it happened due to either labor/military needs or due to the weakness of the Roman state. How effective Roman policy was is irrelevant to the thread.

I don't disagree. I was just going off on the rome/foreigner tangent.

>cry about muh refugees when they are barely taking any both per country and per capita

>come on guys, car accidents and cancer are still killing more people than the migrants! Is it really that big of a deal if we murder and rape just a few thousand people? Don't be such a racist!

The US, a country of 320,000,000 has taken in 10,000 Syrian refugees over the span of 7 years. Cry more.

Not an amerilard but I'm pretty sure they're more butthurt about illegal mexifags than (((syrians))), that's the yuropoors' gig.

Because my country thinks it's a good idea to take in a 130,000 people into a country with 9 million people in it in a single year.

Imagine if the US imported 4.6 million Syrians in a single year. And then just as many the year after that. And the year after that. Oh, and saying that maybe it's a bit too much and that the welfare system can't handle it will mark you as an EVIL RACIST. I'm so fucking sick of this shit, but I live in a nation of cucks.

t. swede

>swede
My condolences, your welfare system used to be ace