AWKWARD ZOMBIE

We wouldnt have to take in so many if the rest of Scandiavia would pull their daisies weight and not just lock themselves down the second anything costs cheddar.

Oslo is one of the fastest growing cities of Europe, and it might actually be the fastest one, but I don't have the exact numbers. We have an extreme infrastructure challenge the coming years because of it. It's been predicted that the subway capacity will be completely filled within 10 years and public transport above ground isn't faring much better. Throwing cheddar at the problem hasn't solved the problem. Halting immigration has been suggested as a way to slow down this issue. There are numerous advantages with this. It frees up resources from integrating new arrivals (which has actually cost the city of Oslo so much cheddar they have had to start borrowing to cover for it), lowers the load on the public transport and allows for a more controlled expansion of housing as that has been a major problem the last few years.

This is just Oslo. There are numerous other cities in Norway experiencing major growth who have geographical challenges to cope with as well. Our current savings in the oil fund would probably allow us to open our borders and pay off our problems for a while, but that defeats the entire purpose of our economic plan. The fund and its payoffs are designed to keep Norway going through difficult times. Not for humanitarian aid.

Honestly. I believe a country has an obligation to its own citizens before the international community. After all, this is what has created economic and societal growth throughout time. If the budgets and current demographics allow for helping other countries and refugees there is nothing wrong about doing so, but the country has no obligations to assist in economic growth in the rest of the world.

Helping people in need is nice and all, but allowing them into your country just ensures that they'll keep coming. Something has to give, and your country is going to run out of cheddar before whatever tyrant country they're fleeing runs out of oppressed people. A better use of the cheddar would be fixing the problem they're running from. But that involves war usually, and war makes people upset. Though some countries just have infrastructure problems, and that's easier to help with.

Well of course, but if you genuinely want the problem of immigration solved, that's what it's going to take. Proper foreign aid too, like educating the populace, not just dumping corn and blankets on them. A country's personal interests should come first, though.

you're killing my faith in a future without bigotry, mete

Wanting to keep people out of your country when they don't do anything to benefit it isn't bigotry.

I think you guys are seeing racism where there is none and are being needlessly antagonistic towards Mete. It's obvious some of you barely skimmed his posts with a preconceived opinion and jumped at his throat anymay. Unlike everybody except Dire and Great Handsome Oppressor and whoever I might be forgetting, he actually presented facts and stats and sources. Almost all responses boil down to "No shut up everything is fine and will stay that way if we believe". He doesn't hate those other cultures because they're different but because some of the views they foster or inforce are incompatible with the modern world. The core of his posts is not "Kill everyone who is not native", it's, as far as I understand it anyway, "The current immigration laws are damaging and unsustainable and therefore should be re-examined". Get off your high horses.

I agree. Mete's made some good points; personally I would like to hope for an ideal world where countries can welcome in everyone and anyone, but ultimately that's unrealistic. Even relatively wealthy countries can only provide so much to its people. The question is, what kind of limits need to be imposed? What's fairest for everyone? That's hard to say and I doubt anyone here is enough of an expert to be able to decide.

Agreeing with him saying that the current immigration laws are not ideal doesn't mean I can't criticize his reasoning.

Sure. That's fine.


But thenTranslation: You are Hitler
Translation: I don't like you so I'm going to reduce your entire argument to aping this philosopher I also don't like because I don't believe you are intelligent enough to make your own opinion
Translation: You are Hitler
Translation: You are Hitler
Translation: You're just angry we're not agreeing with you, which is totally not our case.
Translation: Die white scum
Translation: You are Hitler

Thank you. It's refreshing to see someone who's willing to look at the whole picture.

Is the solution really immigration? Shouldn't we ecourage people to change their country for the better instead of simply moving to another?

But yeah, the reason I never bother discussing other cultures is because anything negative said is automatically racism. That's pretty much a discussion killer. Mete never said all muslims are bad. But yet he's somehow a bigot for discussing actual problems.

When his argument eventually boiled down to "we have to keep them out of Europe at all costs", I honestly couldnt think of a better comparison. I can agree that immigration needs to be looked over, but the sheer amount of Islamophobia Mete displays in his original post is unacceptable. This is the exact reason why immigration debates always devolves into nonsense, its spearheaded by groups with racist policies, you're not going to get ANYTHING done as long as that is the case, because every other political party is going to be afraid of being associated with them, and thus not even going to want to touch the issue out of fear of alienating their voters. Just look at the most anti-immigration parties out there. Sverigedemokraterna, Golden Dawn, BNP, the Tea Party, it doesnt matter if they have legitimate points as long as theyre motivated by racism.

This is difficult. Many of those countries are ruled by tyrants with access to somewhat modern military equipment, while the people are intentionally left unarmed. The best method to help them is to educate the masses, but that gets hard when local governments won't cooperate and the people who could help are afraid of dying. It's also expensive. Sure, a rebellion could be ignited, but then you have to give them a bunch of somewhat modern military equipment to stand up to the tyrants. And then another tyrant comes out of their ranks, and is supported by the people because hey, he killed the old asshole. It's a cycle.


When I disagreed with his argument, I honestly couldn't think of a better comparison than possibly the most hated man in human history.

Realizing that there are two sides to this conflict and presenting a counterpoint should not make you comparable to a man who killed millions of Jewish people, invaded France and stole and hid away thousands of precious works of art