When they say that they want to lower the number of low-skilled immigrants, it means that they want to up the number of 'asylum seekers' (read: economic opportunists) as a replacement.
When they want to lower the number of illegal immigrants, it means that they want to greatly raise the number of 'legal' (low skilled) immigrants or want to get a general amnesty for the illegals, or something.
I'm aware. Plenty of kikes are doing this now, getting the good goys back on their side with all the noooticing going on by pointing at sand niggers (that they funneled into the west in the first place).
If you think creatures like fishback or vooooting in general is still a solution to anything you're ngmi.
Even if immigrants actually assimilated to American culture, and we had engineers instead of DEI's running utilities, and even if our borders were safe, we still need a full stop to immigration so that our infrastructure can catch up.
For as long as I can remember, states and counties have been fighting over water sources to supply their growing populations. Blackouts and cries to conserve electricity have become more common. Stories about smells from landfills or industrial plants have become more common too.
The plot was poisoned as soon as the manufactured narrative wasn't an honest inquiry into the sustainable quality and quantity of immigrants. Frankly it should have been .1%/year of our population since the 60s.
yeah.. because 1 million jeets who are here "legally" is so much better than 1 million mexicans here illegally lol.
I think the Jeets were the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Nobody likes them. Nobody.
Oh good, we're arriving at the logical conclusion that we needed decades ago.
Over a century. Should've sunk the boats in the 1880s.
Men with a time machine...
"Destruction of the country is bad!"
law written to make destroying the country legal
"Whelp, it's the law..."
It's all a game.
When they say that they want to lower the number of low-skilled immigrants, it means that they want to up the number of 'asylum seekers' (read: economic opportunists) as a replacement.
When they want to lower the number of illegal immigrants, it means that they want to greatly raise the number of 'legal' (low skilled) immigrants or want to get a general amnesty for the illegals, or something.
if they didn't qualify before 1965, they have to go back.
I'm not fucking sorry. Fuck betaspeak.
I could tell from the tiny ass picture that this vermin is a kike.
it's named fishback
yeah just vooooooot harder, goy.
Read the tweet. Fishback is the guy saying we should oppose all forms of immigration.
I'm aware. Plenty of kikes are doing this now, getting the good goys back on their side with all the noooticing going on by pointing at sand niggers (that they funneled into the west in the first place).
If you think creatures like fishback or vooooting in general is still a solution to anything you're ngmi.
Even if immigrants actually assimilated to American culture, and we had engineers instead of DEI's running utilities, and even if our borders were safe, we still need a full stop to immigration so that our infrastructure can catch up.
For as long as I can remember, states and counties have been fighting over water sources to supply their growing populations. Blackouts and cries to conserve electricity have become more common. Stories about smells from landfills or industrial plants have become more common too.
The plot was poisoned as soon as the manufactured narrative wasn't an honest inquiry into the sustainable quality and quantity of immigrants. Frankly it should have been .1%/year of our population since the 60s.