Comments (52)
sorted by:
TentElephant 47 points ago +47 / -0

Let's pretend that is true for a moment. Why is line go up more important than a cohesive high trust society where small children could safely wander the streets alone?

Galean 32 points ago +32 / -0

That was one of my arguments after I got in to an argument with a good friend. Lets look at the consequences:

  • erosion of cultural identity
  • discrimination against natives population or at least whites in general, this includes our children
  • polarized society
  • increased violence
  • not one place where increased diversity made people happier or was a net positive to the social structure or happiness


  • it may be better economical
  • you are going to be considered marginally less racist, you are still a pos for being white

If money is the only reason then you are just selling out.

My second argument is what would you do if suddenly a bunch of immigrants moved in your rich, white, neighborhood?

Steampunk_Moustache 23 points ago +23 / -0

Even if it is true, $9.1 billion may be 'line go up', but only if we zoom the chart in to a hilarious degree;

U.S. gdp for 2021 was $22,996.10 billion, a 10.06% increase from 2020.

U.S. gdp for 2020 was $20,893.74 billion, a 2.24% decline from 2019.

U.S. gdp for 2019 was $21,372.57 billion, a 4.12% increase from 2018.

U.S. gdp for 2018 was $20,527.16 billion, a 5.38% increase from 2017.

9.1 billion is fraction of a fraction of a percent. On a national level, it's fucking nothing. It's like you letting an immigrant rape your daughter for 25 cents.

dekachin [S] 6 points ago +6 / -0

yeah and the true non-propaganda stats are that illegals cost the US taxpayer a net loss of somewhere between 50-100k lifetime or so, which multiplied by 10 million illegals, means a 500 billion to 1 trillion loss.

ParadigmShift2070 2 points ago +2 / -0

not just 25c, but think of the amazing food

dekachin [S] 4 points ago +5 / -1

Let's pretend that is true for a moment. Why is line go up more important than a cohesive high trust society where small children could safely wander the streets alone?

High earning Indian doctors and Filipina nurses probably aren't going to rape you like a Swedish Muslim will or groom your children like a British Muslim will.

So I don't mind high educated high earner immigrants. Even if they're Chinese, as long as the Chinese person is unquestionably loyal to the USA not the CCP.

BegrudgingBrit 7 points ago +7 / -0

We actually don't have to live in a country where "doesn't rape children" is the bar for entry, believe it or not

The "high educated high earners" still contribute to the erosion of cultural cohesion and high trust and they need to go back too

Gizortnik -2 points ago +1 / -3

Not necessarily. This may be true for some countries, but not the US. The US is, by it's nature, a propositional nation, founded by a Liberal Revolution, which tried to universalize "ancient English rights and liberties" into Natural Rights.

As such, those philosophical values are more important than anything else for integration. Importing a million authoritarian Swedes would be far more dangerous than importing a million anti-Communist Taiwanese.

This is not the case for all countries (probably not even most), but it is the case for the US based on it's foundation. For example, neither group swathe could be tolerated in Ireland because of it's ethnic, religious, and cultural distinctions.

Gizortnik 2 points ago +2 / -0

No no no, that's too easy. Let's stick entirely within economics since they want to make it an economic argument:

Why would we be importing foreigners to improve the economy instead of focusing on making American workers more competitive and productive?

If you live in a 3rd world shithole than needs development from foreigners, which clearly the US must be, then why flood the country with migrants when you should be using only the most highly-educated and productive foreigners to train your workforce, not replace it.

TheImpossible1 -28 points ago +1 / -29


Because even the dumpster fire that is the EU pays less for food than Hungary.

"Line goes up" is the most important metric for any country. If you prioritize anything else, the standard of life craters.

TentElephant 25 points ago +25 / -0

The reign of quantity is an inherently self-destructive mindset that tears at the foundations of civilization and only functions to legitimize technocratic rule. Line go up doesn't inherently translate to better material conditions for the populace; it means line go up.

TheImpossible1 -22 points ago +1 / -23

Line go up doesn't inherently translate to better material conditions for the populace; it means line go up.

But the vast majority of the time, strong markets and rising GDP do translate to better conditions for the population.

Are there any countries with strong financial markets and rising GDP where things have gotten worse for the people, disregarding China's zero covid power trip?

TentElephant 26 points ago +26 / -0

Most of the west, where real purchasing power has been decreasing for some time. When at one time a lowly laborer could afford a decent home, many people are huddled in tiny apartments downing bottles of anti-depressants. GDP is the absolutely worst metric. It goes up when governments print money, which typically spurs asset inflation.

TheImpossible1 -25 points ago +1 / -26

Housing prices increase with demand, demand rises as the population grows. Natalist policies like Hungary's will make it worse, not better.

Majority of anti-depressant users are women getting high off them, which makes that irrelevant.

SR388-SAX 15 points ago +15 / -0

demand rises as the population grows

You mean like when you let in millions of people who may or may not even be employable? The same ones who drive everybody out of lower-income housing and turn it into racially-segregated, crime infested ghettoes?

AntonioOfVenice 10 points ago +10 / -0

But the vast majority of the time, strong markets and rising GDP do translate to better conditions for the population.

What are 'better conditions'?

Would you rather live in the United Femdom with a slightly higher GDP or in a country that is not a 'feminist despotism'?

BulbasaurusThe7th 9 points ago +9 / -0

He is being smard again. For some reason he hates us more than countries with legit feminazi laws, lol.

AntonioOfVenice 8 points ago +8 / -0

He has to convince himself that his retardation is the only solution to feminazism.

deleted -2 points ago +2 / -4
LibertyPrimeWasRight 16 points ago +16 / -0

Which seems more culturally cohesive and socially stable to you: Hungary, or the EU?

TheImpossible1 -22 points ago +1 / -23

Neither. One is falling apart because of poor economics and one is falling apart because of a woman's power trip.

LibertyPrimeWasRight 15 points ago +15 / -0

I think that answers my question, doesn’t it? One of them is suffering economically, one of them is suffering economically and culturally.

TheImpossible1 -16 points ago +1 / -17

The difference being that the EU could salvage the situation because theirs is caused by the malevolence of a leader, while Hungary's is caused by obvious stupidity.

BulbasaurusThe7th 9 points ago +10 / -1

You are so hilarious with pretending to be an expert of every single fucking country on this planet. Last week you were reeling about the south Korean government betraying you, now you are lunatic wanting about us.

Any bets on which county is next? I am sure Azerbaijan, Vietnam and Laos are super excited for their turn.

yvaN_ehT_nioJ 6 points ago +6 / -0

It'll be the damned Andorrans getting their comeuppance next!

AntonioOfVenice 6 points ago +6 / -0

I think he will blame Estonia for Azerbaijan invading Armenia again.

Women's War II, which the womens started in order to get more men killed! Confess!

TheImpossible1 -6 points ago +2 / -8

I can't hear you from how high your currency has inflated.

Also, +3 in 10 minutes. ConPro loves you!

Steampunk_Moustache 8 points ago +8 / -0

And yet Hungarians dont have to worry about trucks of peace.

current_horror 4 points ago +4 / -0

Maybe the dumbest thing you’ve ever said, and that bar is orbiting the moon.

TheImpossible1 -7 points ago +1 / -8

I don't think so. Imagine having a worse economy than the countries killing themselves.

dekachin [S] 26 points ago +26 / -0

Oh and a quick google search yields these numbers for just one state, Texas: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-illegal-immigration-costs-texas-taxpayers-over-850-million-each-year

Texans pay between $579 million and $717 million each year for public hospital districts to provide uncompensated care for illegal aliens.  
Texans paid $152 million to house illegal criminal aliens for just one year.  
Texans pay between $62 million and $90 million to include illegal aliens in the state Emergency Medicaid program. 
Texans paid more than $1 million for The Family Violence Program to provide services to illegal aliens for one year.  
Texans pay between $30 million and $38 million per year on perinatal coverage for illegal aliens through the Children’s Health Insurance Program.  
Texans pay between $31 million and $63 million to educate unaccompanied alien children each year.  

And that leaves out the #1 cost for illegals: public school for their kids, which costs $12,000 PER KID. [note the above only states "unaccompanied" which are far more rare] "Mr. Huennekens, of the immigration reform group, said the state’s programs for students with limited English proficiency cost more than $7 billion in 2016."

And that's just 1 state.

almond_activator 2 points ago +2 / -0

One state that more than offsets the national statistic, all on its own.

BrainJuice 26 points ago +26 / -0

If this is true...why does Martha's Vineyard not want a net profit?

SR388-SAX 7 points ago +7 / -0

Well they're very generous. They have enough money so they just want to share with the rest of us poors.

Gizortnik 1 point ago +1 / -0

They're so generous for giving all those illegal aliens to our National Gaurdsmen.


Obvious 17 points ago +17 / -0

Before they were deleted, almost all of these comments were extremely anti illegal immigration. I was really surprised to see it considering that it’s Reddit. Not surprised to see the comments deleted, and it’s very sus that the original post has so many upvotes given the sentiment of the comments.

LastRights 7 points ago +7 / -0

Not just deleted, shadowbanned.

ParadigmShift2070 1 point ago +1 / -0

was it during the weekend? shills don't work those days

LibertyPrimeWasRight 13 points ago +13 / -0

Just another day on reddit.

LastRights 11 points ago +11 / -0

Trash sub shadowbanned my account there, rofl.

All those people were shadowbanned.

You can see that they've made a habit out of shadowbanning users in the lower comment threads. All those people not knowing that they've been shadowbanned by some pathetic Reddit janny.

nuggetpatrol 9 points ago +9 / -0

Oops, the truth almost slipped out.

We can't have that.

blyat56 7 points ago +7 / -0

"behold, scientific consensus"

ApparentlyImAHeretic 5 points ago +5 / -0

The importation of under-the-table laborers who don't get the protection of minimum wage or worker safety laws, and are perpetually blackmailed with the threat of deportation, is a net gain to society.

Looks like the left is finally bringing back slave states.

Gizortnik 2 points ago +2 / -0

They always wanted slaves. Slaves are the essence of social control. It's a moral imperative to enslave the world in order to 'correct' it.

RaisingPhoenix 2 points ago +2 / -0

Looks like a method to weed out the disloyal to me.

AccountWasFree 0 points ago +1 / -1

The "cost" of less refugees is specifically using them as slave labour. Their "cost" is that goods and services cannot be done at wages that the local population don't want to do for those prices.

It's almost like leftists love the idea of a slave class without calling it as such. But then again, they've always loves slavery.