[Sp5]

I read The Camp of the Saints soon after it was published in 1973. It did not seem realistic at the time, and I was turned off by the grotesque racist caricatures of the third world migrants who swarmed into Europe by sea in the novel.

Now, the book seems prophetic. The toppling of the Gaddafi government gave free rein to smugglers who operate on the beaches near Tripoli with the consent of the militias who control Libya. Of course, Europe was a main force behind the removal of Gaddafi and the resulting chaos.

For awhile, there was a robust search and rescue effort in the waters between Libya and Italy conducted by the Italian government, Operation Mare Nostrum. That was scaled back because it was bankrupting the Italian government, and was supposed to be replaced by a comparable EU effort, but the EU never stepped up. It's been damn unfair to Italy to have them bear the burden of search, rescue, housing and feeding these migrants. Then again, they bombed Libya, too.

The EU neglect seems to be a pretty clear decision to just do nothing in order to deter migrants.

Whether that's right or wrong, it's kind of interesting tracking the news coverage. In death terms, the last week has been like three full 747s crashing, but the coverage does not approach that of recent plane crashes or the Charlie Hebdo murders.

It's even difficult to find pictures of the floating corpses, a pretty clear example of government news management.



If Sp5 was in charge, he'd put a UN or EU force on the Libyan beaches and spread some money amongst the big Libyan militias like the Misrata one to stop this shit.

[N°6]

Is this the case when Muslim immigrants chucked the Christian ones overboard?

As seen from the outside, the massive upheaval in Western society is approaching the limit beyond which it will
become “meta-stable” and must collapse. —SOLZHENITSYN

[Foolsgo1d]

You will find a lot of these migrants coming to states with generous welfare societies. Namely Germany, France and the UK.

I was just waiting for this to appear in the MSM ever since reading about it on Reuters.com. It has become a very lucrative trade for those people smugglers in Libya and other states.

They simply guide the boats/ships towards Europe and put the throttle down and then leave on other boats back to Africa. They know the rescue teams will spot them and then pluck them out, a win-win situation for them. They cannot be caught because we have no jurisdiction and if you do catch up with them the migrants are a priority in need of help.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-19-2015 12:21 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

I read The Camp of the Saints soon after it was published in 1973. It did not seem realistic at the time, and I was turned off by the grotesque racist caricatures of the third world migrants who swarmed into Europe by sea in the novel.

Now, the book seems prophetic.

Seems like the book was written by someone who had an idea of what was to come or he realized the dangers.

The current multiculturalism is created by design.

I don't want the thread move towards anti-semitism here, but I find her comments very fitting and so incredibly infuriating for anyone understanding what is going on. Of course it's not mainly some Jewish groups, but simply the global social engineers financed by incredible money who intend to create a diversity-hell in both the EU as well as Canada/USA. Such a deeply divided population will never be able to rise in unison.

Also - there are plenty of Jews who are well-aware of the rampant immigration and who btw are totally opposed to all immigration that does not consist of Ashkenazi Jews. I personally support that fully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsulVFl7KXE


It is interesting that traitors like the woman above speak of a "transformation that MUST TAKE PLACE IN EUROPE". Must!!!?? Really? Must the European indigenous population become a minority in their own country and be surrounded by men and women with whom they have very little in common - neither race, nor religion, customs, language? Must we truly be forced to become such a society?

Well - of course we must. That's why I plan to move to Japan after Poland. They accepted a record of 14 refugees last year.

If I want to visit Libya I prefer to go there instead of Sweden in 20 years.

[Disco_Volante]

Pope Francis is urging EU to take in more immigrants (Muslims).
I'm not sure if he's that stupid or just another marxist pushing this shit.
http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Pope...208908.php

Why doesn't the catholic church sell its billion dollar art collection, Im sure that could help alot of immigrants.

Russia has 2nd most immigrants in the world. USA and Britain have become dumping grounds for 3rd world refugees.

I dont understand why people cant just admit civilizations founded on white christian values are superior and more desirable to live in. Liberals completely ignore this, especially white girls on some level they know there's only a few countries they can visit and feel safe, yet they tear down christian men every chance they get.
Eventually there wont be a place to run to.
Italy already has really high unemployment, now theyre paying for the care of people from failed culture/societies.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-19-2015 02:14 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Pope Francis is urging EU to take in more immigrants (Muslims).
I'm not sure if he's that stupid or just another marxist pushing this shit.
http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Pope...208908.php

Why doesn't the catholic church sell its billion dollar art collection, Im sure that could help alot of immigrants.

You are missing something. The Catholic church has the largest holdings of real estate in the world by any known entity. Selling even 5% would net dozens of billions at least.

In some countries they own half the city houses and massive woods and agricultural land.

The church is always first when preaching, but last when it comes to paying the bill.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(04-19-2015 02:14 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Pope Francis is urging EU to take in more immigrants (Muslims).
I'm not sure if he's that stupid or just another marxist pushing this shit.
http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Pope...208908.php

Why doesn't the catholic church sell its billion dollar art collection, Im sure that could help alot of immigrants.

Russia has 2nd most immigrants in the world. USA and Britain have become dumping grounds for 3rd world refugees.

I dont understand why people cant just admit civilizations founded on white christian values are superior and more desirable to live in. Liberals completely ignore this, especially white girls on some level they know there's only a few countries they can visit and feel safe, yet they tear down christian men every chance they get.
Eventually there wont be a place to run to.

I'm reading a fascinating Pulitzer prize winning book on 14th century Europe called A Distant Mirror.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on Caucasians and Christian heritage being the magic sauce behind a greater quality of life in present day Europe.
The historic level of savagery and duplicity and sheer terror, much of it carried out by Church officials is stunning.
That is European heritage.
If anything, Christianity is an impediment to further progress in the present age. In the past, it was best described as evil.
Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but it's just a bunch of made up bullshit anyway. Bedtime stories for children that never grew up.
Want to know why life is better? Science. Moving away from superstition.

[Disco_Volante]

The rules of christianity created a great social fabric.
Family unit, individual property rights, hard work, not fucking over your fellow man.

You had to go back 600 years in christianity to find violence comparable to what modern muslims do virtually every day. You sound like Obama referencing the crusades as to why modern violence and instability from Muslim areas is somehow excusable.

I doubt you would go live in Algeria, Libya, or Somalia. But youll sit there and tell me christian-based white societies like Ireland or USA are worse places.

Please, prove me wrong. Buy a plane ticket to mogadishu then do a video blog from there about how christianity is the real problem.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(04-19-2015 02:25 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

The rules of christianity created a great social fabric.
Family unit, individual property rights, hard work, not fucking over your fellow man.

You had to go back 600 years in christianity to find violence comparable to what modern muslims do virtually every day. You sound like Obama referencing the crusades as to why modern violence and instability from Muslim areas is somehow excusable.

I doubt you would go live in Algeria, Libya, or Somalia. But youll sit there and tell me christian-based white societies like Ireland or USA are worse places.

Please, prove me wrong. Buy a plane ticket to mogadishu then do a video blog from there about how christianity is the real problem.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. It doesn't surprise me that you are the type to throw in a non sequitur about Obama and the crusades.
The rules of Christianity had nothing to do with the development of respect of property rights and the family unit. In fact, it was secular humanism and the development of a body of common law that did so.
The Church was a vicious organization that plundered the people at every opportunity. It was a driving force behind pillage, rape, torture, mass murder, confiscation, and extortionate taxes.
You don't have to go back anywhere near as far as 600 years to find horrible abuses.
Modern European nations are not Christian based. They have Christian heritage, which they move further from everyday, which explains their advancement.
I also never said that Algeria, Libya, or Somalia were better places to live than Western Europe. You would know this if you had bothered to read my comment.
I merely pointed out that the superior quality of life in Western Europe has been achieved despite Christianity, not because of it.
Christianity is just a set of bullshit myths that gained superiority over other bullshit myths. Rulers embraced it because it was a way to control and subjugate diverse groups of subjects. It facilitated exploitation.
Those countries that still base their societies on bullshit myths are stuck in the past and are horrible places to live, those countries that leave the made up bullshit behind and embrace science, have made life much better.

[Libertas]

Suicidal altruism in action.

(04-19-2015 02:52 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

The rules of Christianity had nothing to do with the development of respect of property rights and the family unit. In fact, it was secular humanism and the development of a body of common law that did so.
The Church was a vicious organization that plundered the people at every opportunity. It was a driving force behind pillage, rape, torture, mass murder, confiscation, and extortionate taxes.
You don't have to go back anywhere near as far as 600 years to find horrible abuses.
Modern European nations are not Christian based. They have Christian heritage, which they move further from everyday, which explains their advancement.

Stop. You sound like one of those militant online atheists. Yes, the Church has a large share of bad history, but you are painting things with the same broad, black and white stroke that you accuse Disco_Volante of painting.

The Church was the primary instrument of social order in Western Europe after the dissolution of Roman authority and prevented warlordism, provided essential services, and preserved the intellectual achievements of the ancients. Without that, none of the advancement you so harp on would be possible.

There is also something to be said that for all its "advancement," the modern zeitgeist left by the vacuum of Christianity is so utterly dead and devoid of meaning that it's allowed the stupidity we see and talk about on this forum every day to rampage on completely unabated.

So while Christianity has its a bad past, it was crucial to the development of Europe as we know it too. Anyone who says otherwise is very foolish. Does that mean we should go back to that zeitgeist of faith? Not necessarily, but I do think that most people need some sort of higher glue to keep their excesses in check, otherwise you get an empty, meaningless, nothing matters narcissism in society. I don't know the answer going forward, but I do know that science has in many ways failed man's need for meaning.

[N°6]

(04-19-2015 01:25 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

If I want to visit Libya I prefer to go there instead of Sweden in 20 years.

It makes me wonder if someone is having a laugh with the name Spectre. The malevolent hidden hand S.P.E.C.T.R.E. in the Bond films could not have planned a more destructive future for Sweden.

Sweden is gone. When we consider its small and vulnerable population being less than London's which is now a British-minority city state, it is hard to imagine Swedish men being able to reverse the trend towards pale, male, privileged minority status.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-19-2015 03:07 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

So while Christianity has its a bad past, it was crucial to the development of Europe as we know it too. Anyone who says otherwise is very foolish. Does that mean we should go back to that zeitgeist of faith? Not necessarily, but I do think that most people need some sort of higher glue to keep their excesses in check, otherwise you get an empty, meaningless, nothing matters narcissism in society. I don't know the answer going forward, but I do know that science has in many ways failed man's need for meaning.

It's off topic. Personally I think that Christianity brought a certain moral set that is valuable - for example the notion that ALL LIFE is sacred - even the poor, the slave or the very sick/born with birth defects - all being worth something as soul. That was a drastic new concept back then.

But I agree with VVV that the teaching was quickly used even by the Roman empire for power and other means. Later on it was mainly even a knowledge stifling power despite some conversation measures that it enacted. Europe developed through a multitude of factors, but Christianity was at best a basis for that and actually the rise of protestant faiths made quicker development possible.

Whether civilization would have progressed faster with or without Christianity is difficult to say, because it depends with what it would have been replaced. If Islam had conquered all of Europe, then I doubt that we would be sitting here on our PCs - we would be likely writing on scrolls in candle-light.

So who knows really - alternative history is hard to assess - let's be happy it worked out so far - heh.

[DjembaDjemba]

If European leaders wanted to stop illegal migration they would, and they would immediately, and could do it without looking cruel and inhumane. They could do something as simple as turn boats back, run campaigns like Australia does targeted at the source countries letting them know Europe will not accept them. They could build detention camps on small islands in the Mediterranean to process migrants and send them back.

European leaders however have been looking at America even with its myriad of social problems with an envious eye. Reforms are coming to Europe but not how nationalists want or imagine. Europe, especially the south is slowly turning into the Americas, and the leaders tacitly approve this. Why? Because they love cheap labour but can't actually admit it or there'll be backlash.

It's no coincidence that southern rural Italy today looks uncannily like 1930s rural deep south. White land owners, with hundreds of thousands (and soon millions) black labourers who are starting make up massive parts of the rural population picking fruits, vegetables, and make up almost all farm hands. In many ways, the migrants of today are the union busters Europe's business community has wanted since after WW2. They'll work for cheap, live in abhorrent conditions, and won't say a word about treatment. This is a borderline voluntary slave trade. As many boats are hitting southern Spain and Italy as ships carrying human cargo were Charlestown in the 1700s. Europe's leaders (and and wealthy land owners) know very well what's going on, but they approve, while pretending this is a disaster. Otherwise there wouldn't be teams of health workers, Coast guards, rescue teams and priests intercepting boats, off loading the migrants, and letting them into Europe.

The effects of this aren't going to be the rise of nazism, or hardcore nationalism like so many want, but instead it will be the rise of men Sarkozy and Nigel Farage, who will pay lip service to the nationalists while they will simply strip the European social welfare state, which will be much easier when they can use the visibly different immigrants as the pawns necessary to do this. This will play out for a century if not longer. The changes will be incremental. Europe, especially the south will look like contemporary Brazil.

That's just how she goes sometimes.

[Fast Eddie]

The boat people are just a distraction. The true damage is being done by legal immigration via family reunification laws and asylum seeking. Literally millions of immigrants make their way to Europe each year by this route, whereas illegal immigration accounts for at most a few hundred thousand.

So of course the media and politicians make sure that if they deign to discuss the topic of immigration at all, they only ever broach the numerically insignificant illegal immigrant topic. This way they seem to be throwing a bone to the public, while the real heart of the issue remains not even up for debate.

[Libertas]

(04-19-2015 03:22 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

But I agree with VVV that the teaching was quickly used even by the Roman empire for power and other means. Later on it was mainly even a knowledge stifling power despite some conversation measures that it enacted. Europe developed through a multitude of factors, but Christianity was at best a basis for that and actually the rise of protestant faiths made quicker development possible.

It's not that I disagree with this basic premise, I just tend to get tired of black and white thinking.

Although the Protestant Reformation occurred at precisely the same time as the rise of the printing press and European enterprises in the Americas bringing untold wealth to the continent. So all of those things were important.

In fact, one might well argue that Christianity is at the heart of the suicidal altruism that so plagues the West today. Its intellectual foundation if you will. In that regard it has left a bad legacy.

[Lizard King]

Diversity is a diversion, and 'multiculturalism' is just a buzzword created to give a false pretext to the population increase required to maintain some economic growth in Europe.

An economy that is growing requires its population to increase for the growth to continue. If the population increase does not come from native births it has to come from immigration. The EU don't care about migrants perishing in the Mediterranean, they care about money.

They could be stopped in a couple of weeks by aggressive patrolling and forcing vessels to return, eventually they could be forced to stop, but that will never happen.

[It_is_my_time]

(04-19-2015 02:52 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 02:25 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

The rules of christianity created a great social fabric.
Family unit, individual property rights, hard work, not fucking over your fellow man.

You had to go back 600 years in christianity to find violence comparable to what modern muslims do virtually every day. You sound like Obama referencing the crusades as to why modern violence and instability from Muslim areas is somehow excusable.

I doubt you would go live in Algeria, Libya, or Somalia. But youll sit there and tell me christian-based white societies like Ireland or USA are worse places.

Please, prove me wrong. Buy a plane ticket to mogadishu then do a video blog from there about how christianity is the real problem.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. It doesn't surprise me that you are the type to throw in a non sequitur about Obama and the crusades.
The rules of Christianity had nothing to do with the development of respect of property rights and the family unit. In fact, it was secular humanism and the development of a body of common law that did so.
The Church was a vicious organization that plundered the people at every opportunity. It was a driving force behind pillage, rape, torture, mass murder, confiscation, and extortionate taxes.
You don't have to go back anywhere near as far as 600 years to find horrible abuses.
Modern European nations are not Christian based. They have Christian heritage, which they move further from everyday, which explains their advancement.
I also never said that Algeria, Libya, or Somalia were better places to live than Western Europe. You would know this if you had bothered to read my comment.
I merely pointed out that the superior quality of life in Western Europe has been achieved despite Christianity, not because of it.
Christianity is just a set of bullshit myths that gained superiority over other bullshit myths. Rulers embraced it because it was a way to control and subjugate diverse groups of subjects. It facilitated exploitation.
Those countries that still base their societies on bullshit myths are stuck in the past and are horrible places to live, those countries that leave the made up bullshit behind and embrace science, have made life much better.

Advancement?

The advancement in Europe is due to the Marshall plan from the USA rebuilding their countries follow WWII. And now a few generations later the head start has been crushed by multiculturalism/liberalism and Europe is on the verge of bankruptcy and the hell that follows afterwards.

[Fast Eddie]

(04-19-2015 05:37 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Diversity is a diversion, and 'multiculturalism' is just a buzzword created to give a false pretext to the population increase required to maintain some economic growth in Europe.

An economy that is growing requires its population to increase for the growth to continue. If the population increase does not come from native births it has to come from immigration. The EU don't care about migrants perishing in the Mediterranean, they care about money.

They could be stopped in a couple of weeks by aggressive patrolling and forcing vessels to return, eventually they could be forced to stop, but that will never happen.

Well that's the fucked up part: immigration is a net drain on the economy. Most of these people immigrating are barely literate third world peasants. You really think they're going to contribute economically? Hell no. There is a reason they make a beeline to those countries with the most generous welfare systems, and it ain't because they like that cold northern climate, either.

They arrive, they can't/won't find jobs that they can support themselves on. So the difference is made up by the native population through their tax money. Then they go ahead and pump out 5+ kids, all of whom suck up even more money for healthcare and schooling. Once those kids grow up, they become even more maladjusted than their immigrant parents, because now they've absorbed the ghetto elements of Western culture and supplemented it with state sponsored anti-Western indoctrination in the schools. If you throw in the fact that the largest part of immigrants are from an Islamic background, you have a perfect brew for mischief, but not at all for productivity.

Anyway, the point is, growing an economy is not as simple as throwing more people at it. If you take half of sub-Saharan Africa's population and land it in Japan, the Japanese economy isn't going to magically expand. What will happen is that the wealth that used to be divided among x-million Japanese will now have to go to x-Japanese and y-Africans.

[Grange]

(04-19-2015 05:52 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The advancement in Europe is due to the Marshall plan from the USA rebuilding their countries follow WWII.

This is a myth that won't die in the US. West Germany got far less Marshall Plan $$ than France and the UK and only a little more than Italy but became and remains far more successful economically than all of them.

Quote:

And now a few generations the head start has been crushed by multiculturalism and Europe is on the verge of bankruptcy and the hell that follows afterwards.

Germany is also the biggest destination of immigrants in Europe except Russia I think. Bets on which major European country is the last to go bankrupt?

[It_is_my_time]

(04-19-2015 06:18 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 05:52 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The advancement in Europe is due to the Marshall plan from the USA rebuilding their countries follow WWII.

This is a myth that won't die in the US. West Germany got far less Marshall Plan $$ than France and the UK and only a little more than Italy but became and remains far more successful economically than all of them.

Quote:

And now a few generations the head start has been crushed by multiculturalism and Europe is on the verge of bankruptcy and the hell that follows afterwards.

Germany is also the biggest destination of immigrants in Europe except Russia I think. Bets on which major European country is the last to go bankrupt?

I love Germany, I would love for it to stand strong. But the fact is the "advancement" in the last 60 years is the western world borrowing money it doesn't have to pay for a bunch of failed liberal policies that will never work. There is NO advancement in Europe, just a giant shit storm getting ready to hit the fan.

I know the German people are very smart and very hard working and very organized. If they could shed their liberal policies they would probably be the most powerful country in the world. But even Germany cannot with stand having your country overrun with diseased, illiterate immigrants who come just to suck off the teet of the govt. and give nothing back.

[Libertas]

(04-19-2015 05:37 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Diversity is a diversion, and 'multiculturalism' is just a buzzword created to give a false pretext to the population increase required to maintain some economic growth in Europe.

An economy that is growing requires its population to increase for the growth to continue. If the population increase does not come from native births it has to come from immigration. The EU don't care about migrants perishing in the Mediterranean, they care about money.

They could be stopped in a couple of weeks by aggressive patrolling and forcing vessels to return, eventually they could be forced to stop, but that will never happen.

It's more a matter of credit and energy availability than population growth.

This would be something I'd need to look into more to be totally sure, but I believe the net energy extracted has been declining for decades. A century ago society was able to gain 100 barrels of oil worth of energy for every 1 barrel spent. Now it's around 11:1 I think.

Lo and behold as this began to happen you needed to have more credit and cheap labor to do the glut in work left by the increasing energy drain.

Depletion + increasing debt overhang + increased population is not going to bode well for the future if this is all true.

To say nothing of the social costs of immigration which are never allowed to be discussed.

[amity]

Not directly related to the thread topic but something one of you said above reminded me of a post some time back on immigration to Sweden in recent times.
Somebody made a comment that Sweden was one of the most successful economies in the world and so how could immigration be a net negative economically to the country.
Then the OP replied back with what I thought was a brilliantly observed remark (or words to this effect anyway):
"That Sweden is a successful economy is due to the legacy of the indigineous Swedes over the generations, and has very little to do with the newer arrivals. Essentially, Sweden is successful despite rather than because of the influx of immigrants."

[Alpone]

I read part of Culture of Critique and it sets out the Jewish rationale for 1st world mass immigration in the first 25 pages. You can google it and find a free copy - no way libraries would carry this book.

There was also an offhand comment by Wesley Clark a couple of years ago where he stated something like "The era of ethnically pure European states is over". Then there was something on the BBC about how liberal socialists "let open the flood gates of immigration" in Britain just to get back at conservatives.

We're dealing with a massively coordinated, deliberately orchestrated migration from the 3rd world into the western 1st world. This is going to change the face of western civilization for the next 500 years. In my opinion, the end game will be a more docile, more submissive population that identifies with the state rather than tribe or ethnic group. In the mean time, China's homogeneous population will continue to boom and Africa will hit 4 billion in the next 40 years (outpacing China). The white population will continue to shrink and due to mass 3rd world immigration into previously white countries, the U.S. and Europe will look more like Brazil and begin to weaken on the world stage. Russia will grow in power (they already are, which I contribute to their conservative policies and limits on immigration) and will partner with China - they've already started doing joint military exercises in 2014.

The future belongs to China, Russia and an increasingly overpopulated, dysfunctional Africa. I wouldn't want to be a child born in 2200.

[N°6]

(04-19-2015 07:37 PM)Alpone Wrote:  

There was also an offhand comment by Wesley Clark a couple of years ago where he stated something like "The era of ethnically pure European states is over". Then there was something on the BBC about how liberal socialists "let open the flood gates of immigration" in Britain just to get back at conservatives.

Correct on two points.

If in the off-chance a European nation tried to wrestle itself from globalism and the mass-immigration of cheap labour and more fertile wombs and importation of cheap money, it would be US and British bombs that would fall on it - not Russian.

As for your second point, here is your source:

Quote:

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l...viser.html

[Lizard King]

(04-19-2015 05:56 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 05:37 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Diversity is a diversion, and 'multiculturalism' is just a buzzword created to give a false pretext to the population increase required to maintain some economic growth in Europe.

An economy that is growing requires its population to increase for the growth to continue. If the population increase does not come from native births it has to come from immigration. The EU don't care about migrants perishing in the Mediterranean, they care about money.

They could be stopped in a couple of weeks by aggressive patrolling and forcing vessels to return, eventually they could be forced to stop, but that will never happen.

Well that's the fucked up part: immigration is a net drain on the economy. Most of these people immigrating are barely literate third world peasants. You really think they're going to contribute economically? Hell no. There is a reason they make a beeline to those countries with the most generous welfare systems, and it ain't because they like that cold northern climate, either.

They arrive, they can't/won't find jobs that they can support themselves on. So the difference is made up by the native population through their tax money. Then they go ahead and pump out 5+ kids, all of whom suck up even more money for healthcare and schooling. Once those kids grow up, they become even more maladjusted than their immigrant parents, because now they've absorbed the ghetto elements of Western culture and supplemented it with state sponsored anti-Western indoctrination in the schools. If you throw in the fact that the largest part of immigrants are from an Islamic background, you have a perfect brew for mischief, but not at all for productivity.

Anyway, the point is, growing an economy is not as simple as throwing more people at it. If you take half of sub-Saharan Africa's population and land it in Japan, the Japanese economy isn't going to magically expand. What will happen is that the wealth that used to be divided among x-million Japanese will now have to go to x-Japanese and y-Africans.

My observations of immigration are from the UK. I can only speak on what I see here. Illegal immigrants are not entitled to welfare in this country. However because we are part of the EU, we are subject to a great deal of the immigration within the EU. Most of them get jobs and become consumers and tax payers. Admittedly many send money out of the country(an actual economic drain), but they are still cogs within the economic machine. They buy mobile phones, trainers and fast food and gorge on Western culture. The mass immigration only favours the governments and corporations(cheap labour, more customers to sell to).