Topic: is demanding asylum the new indirect way to enslave a different society? (Read 193 times)

your state is hypocritic towards migrants because it wants on the one hand use them as a workforce on the other hand keep the current population working, thats how those banksters think,

If you do something bad to your neighbor, the courts are open for him to sue you. Why not sue immigrants for damage that they do?

If government won't let you sue immigrants, it's time to sue government people who block your suit.

If you did this en masse, government would change and let you sue the immigrants. Then the immigrants wouldn't want to come in.

it is not just labour that is comming in, its muslims among them potential terrorists, communists, people with an affinity to different countries and africans (pushing racial tensions)

that makes migration difficult. all countries try to prefer close related migrants as labour. the massive surveilance state and the xenophobia of the population is the only thing that keeps the migrant beciming labour.

the pyramid system of societies can get torn appart by migrants with ultimately punishing the good citizen who tried running a great country.

uk will after brexit destroy its own societies with cheap labour from india/africa i bet they are that retarded.

regards

actually its media to blame

many dont mind more labour coming in. they can take the untrained jobs which no one wants to do anyway

the problem is that some dont want to better themselves. so instead they listen to media about how immigration is to blame for hospital waiting times and such. and thus become racial and blaming others

truth is hospital beds have more than halved in the last 20 years in the UK their used to be 300k beds now theres 130k beds. this is not due to over population. this is due to shutting down hospitals and wards.

same with schools. when they changed uk schools into 'academies' they closed down and merged pupils into schools making it appear as a over population. but thats due to reducing capacity for a static populous and then trying to squeeze the static populous in anyway

..
as for the assumption that society decays due to foreign immigration. thats a little far fetched too.
england was built on immigration. we brits love eating indian curries and such.
heck british tea actually has chinese origins

the problem is not the people coming in. its media's reporting of how we should view them. and in most cases its to view them as job stealers, hospital bed takers, school chair squatters and terrorists. thus media make people fear even talking and including them socially/professionally.
if people actually seen the positive impact of immigration. aswell as the benefits and freedoms of emigration and realised all the media hype is just a curtain blocking out the light of truth. then people see its not a society issue of infrustructure/resources. but a social problem of communication

i know im only speaking from an example of the UK. but america is the same. they are a migrant build country too
most americans actually think they are irish decended. or they are part of the chinatown, russac, polac, mexican minorities

..
as for germany.. well
them germans with their grasp of the EU purse strings are losing a populous of 70mill in the form of the UK. so they need to build up more populous in the EU or else the EU wont sustain itself. so you have to see the bigger picture

there is a point where the population stops integrating foreigners, but simply quits jobs getting burnout, because they don't feel at home anymore, the government then can't win with foreign immigrations anymore and only desintegrates the society. thats what is already the case in western europe, thats why france seeks to create a duonation republic with germany.

the freemasons and their private greedy corporations that abused the nationalist welfarestate to improve their chances to find labour abroad the EU are responsible for this.

regards

when it comes to asylum seekers. its actually profitable for governments

governments could demand german population to just procreate 3million extra populous. but that involves all the medical costs of ultrasounds, doctors appointments maternity care.. then 16years of child care.

however just letting in 3 million ready grown people saves all the 16 years of tax spending and all that is required is a year of work training costs. much like a year of college. and then put them to work

you would be surprised how much of a saving it actually is.
also asylum seekers dont get as much 'social security' as what a true citizen would get.

in the UK a citizen jobseeker/medically retired gets £73 living alowance and housing costs. however an asylum seeker only gets £39 and that asylum seeker has a time limit to get into a position of work or gain citizenship. or get deported. which if you do the math is cheaper to handle an asylum seeker than a uk born jobseeker

Anybody who thinks that rulers and leaders don't want to rule the world is a little naive.

Anybody who is willing to respond without reading what they are responding to is a little foolish.

All you need to do is look at the nations of the world in ancient times to see that nationalism didn't begin with the French, and that it wasn't limited to them.

All you need to do is look at the leaders of ancient nations of the world to see that they often made agreements with each other to strengthen their own national position in the world. But it was based on conquest in their inner thoughts and ideals.

The idea that socialism for world domination plays into anything can easily be shown to be false, simply by looking at the Tower of Babel history. Even Soviet Russia (USSR) socialism wasn't a thing of strength, but, rather, of weakness. As a social group, the people of the Tower finally quit building the tower, because they couldn't get along socially. There was family nationalism that split them.

Loads of people don't want your socialism. However, we might agree to get together for a little while, just to rid the earth your silly socialism.

german's didnt wanted to rule the world,

during european colonialism germans where part of all european expansion also russian, so there was never a lack of land or ressources, the problem began with french revolution and the beginning of nationalism, which has cut out the germans from the other european colonies, and the germans where forced to do colonialism themselves.

most americans nowadays have german not english ancestery btw.

Germany wanted to rule the world. They tried through WW1 and WW2. Both of these wars were methods for Germans to go out there and take over. (Of course, it wasn't the German people as much as it was their crazy, warmongering leaders.) But it didn't work.

World War losses didn't stop Germany. Notice who is head of the Euro banking system... Germany. But, the Germans are smart. If they can't rule the world by simple conquest, they can do it by the next best thing.

Families maintain strong family bonds. If you can bring in a bunch of immigrants - who remain bonded with their families back in their home countries - and bond them with your country, you have a bond with the home country the immigrants came from. If you are smart, you can take over the foreign country through the immigrants you allowed in. World conquest.

Brexit threatens EU/world-conquest by the Germans. Behind the scenes, much of Brexit opposition is being promoted covertly, by Germany.

the population isnt reproducing if it is constantly under chaotic migration stress.
and jes private corporations and their greed for workers and employees especially cheap ones is systematically lobbying wholing appart a nation and it also sparks violence between state,

private corporations and greed for labour is why the democratic party in the usa can't stop hating russia

Back in the old days, in order to have mass population enter territory of another country and settle it, they had to win a war first...
Today, just because things are "bad" at home, its reason enough.
The deciding factor is, do the migrants intend to assimilate or to recreate a small version of the hellhole they left behind in a new place at the expense of the people who welcomed them?

I mean the problem in Germany was that they did kinda need new workers pumped into their workforce. They had an issue where their population was getting much older, and there was going to be a shortage of workers and tax revenues. I don't recall where I read this, but I do know that it is the case.

The issue was that in other countries they didn't need the workers, these people just flowed in (on the EU orders) and just flooded the nation with cheap labor that was not beneficial towards the nation.

There's the additional problem where the people who came in hadn't been vetted. That's an additional problem that people should've dealt with.

thats someone who promoted EU cooperation instead of hatred, well jes the problem turned mad, eu went into a migrant problematic.

human rights can't be for free for all demanding no work.

but kalergi wasn't the one that imposed the human rights constitution on germany it was, the allies that wrote the constitution that today forces germany to house those asylum seekers, why dont the so called allies take and use that german constitution can you tell me that?

Who is Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi?

germany has to take care of 3 million migrants from africa, what are the germans supposed to do with them?

why do they have to feed them, protect them, and educate them, this is a never ending stream of enslavement that ends up being a bad business.

regards