NATION

PASSWORD

How to convince people that more immigration is good?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Ceranapis
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 60
Founded: May 18, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

How to convince people that more immigration is good?

Postby Ceranapis » Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:06 pm

I got into an argument about immigration this morning, and now this has been rattling around my head for the afternoon. Assume we want more immigration - how do we best convince skeptical voters and institutions to create the political change for it?

In this essay, The Economist notes a couple different strategies for convincing people of the need for more immigration:

- Personal stories. People generally relate more to personal stories—such as that of Paulette Wilson, a retired cook who previously worked at the House of Commons, who was wrongly arrested and threatened with deportation by the British government—than to dry statistics.

- Social contact. Fear of “the other” tends to dissipate when people get to know each other. So getting people to mix more would help.

- Appeal to emotions. Opponents of immigration whip up fear and hate. As well as appealing to compassion for immigrants, supporters could tap into patriotism, arguing how openness makes a country great.

- Emphasise what unites us. Diversity is great; so is what people in a particular place have in common.

- Appeal to other people’s values. Liberal values such as individual freedom and equal rights leave some people cold. But Trump voters may be swayed by stories about immigrants who fought for America; traditionalists may be persuaded by highlighting how Latino immigrants share their family values.

- Address people’s underlying concerns. As well as pointing out that immigrants aren’t to blame for unemployment, stagnant wages or stretched public services, politicians need to implement policies to address these problems.

In particular, social contact is recognized as a high potential strategy. People who identify with immigrants and encounter them in their daily lives are less likely to support immigration restrictions. Big cities, with more migrants, are more supportive of immigration than small towns and other areas that receive comparably few. They note that the familiarity strategy has worked well with same-sex marriage- as the percentage of people that know a homosexual person increased, so too did acceptance for that group. However, they also note a drawback for this strategy applied to immigration. Same-sex marriage acceptance imposes essentially no costs on individuals opposed to it, whereas more open immigration has greater perceived costs, even if the exact reality of those costs is debated.

Let's try not to debate the question- there are plenty of other threads where you can argue for your preferred level of immigration. We've all had that argument, we know logical points each side is going to make. Let's focus on the meta-debate one step up from that. Assuming that we want more immigration, what's the best way to convince people of it, either rhetorically or through policy?

For what it's worth, my argument this morning focused on addressing underlying concerns & personal stories, with a dash of appeal to emotion.
Everybody works but the VACANT LOT- for the remedy read HENRY GEORGE

User avatar
Nevertopia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 703
Founded: May 27, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nevertopia » Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:18 pm

first of all you'll have to accept that theres always going to be a facet of the population that will not and cannot budge on this topic. This goes for both pro and anti immigration.

I think the best solution is all of the above, through policy and rhetoric. Different methods work on different people and there are conversations and experiences that need to be had that a single answer simply isn't robust enough to tackle.

Personally I'd focus more on social contact. I truly believe in humanity's propensity for sex to unite as all as one people. Asian, Latin-American, Blacks, whites, etc, theres lots of strokes for different folks.
Communism has failed every time its been tried.
Civilization Index: Class 13.2
Tier 6.5: Digital Discoverer | Level 4: Able Acolyte | Type 5.5: Regional Regent
This nation's overview is the primary canon. For more information use NS stats.
Black Lives Matter

User avatar
Nuroblav
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1473
Founded: Nov 13, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Nuroblav » Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:20 pm

Addressing underlying concerns would be the main method in my opinion, as well as social contact. After those methods you mentioned have been used, there will still likely be people who disagree anyway, and that just kinda has to be accepted.
Last edited by Nuroblav on Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Your NS Anarcho-Communist, metalhead and all-round...err...human. TG if you have any questions about my political or musical views.

Economic Left/Right: -7.13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.03

\m/ METAL IS BASED \m/

User avatar
Borderlands of Rojava
Minister
 
Posts: 2966
Founded: Jul 27, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby Borderlands of Rojava » Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:34 pm

Immigrants add to our numbers as a country and immigration is natural, having occurred for thousands of years. For example, I'm glad my dad's ancestors immigrated to the Carribean from Lebanon and I'm glad America immigrated to the island of my family's origin, or I would not exist.
The devil is out there. Hiding behind every corner and in every nook and cranny. In all of the dives, all over the city. Before you lays an entire world of enemies, and at day's end when the chips are down, we're a society of strangers. You cant walk by someone on the street anymore without crossing the road to get away from their stare. Welcome to the Twilight Zone. The land of plague and shadow. Nothing innocent survives this world. If it can't corrupt you, it'll kill you.

User avatar
Dumb Ideologies
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43419
Founded: Sep 30, 2007
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Dumb Ideologies » Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:53 pm

Socialist economic policies so they don't push up middle and higher wages at the expense of a downward pressure on wages at the lower rungs. Active pro-integration policy - mandatory language learning classes as a condition, free housing on entry dispersed around the country to encourage a "pepperpot" pattern rather than enclaves, no religious/culture schools.

Basically, try to remove the legitimate concerns it raises and so make it actually good or at least neutral for a wider base of people rather than just middle class "cosmopolitans" who don't care about culture or working class wages. Then it becomes a much less exploitable wedge issue.
Last edited by Dumb Ideologies on Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:02 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Tʜᴇ Mᴏsᴛʟʏ Pᴇᴀᴄᴇғᴜʟ Rɪᴏᴛɪɴɢ ᴏғ Dᴜᴍʙ Iᴅᴇᴏʟᴏɢɪᴇs
¸„¤*˜*¤„¸„¤*˜*¤„¸ To culture war! The cause of and solution to all of life's problems ¸„¤*˜*¤„¸„¤*˜*¤„¸
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane ~ Marcus Aurelius
♆ P ᴀ x D I ᴀ ʙ ᴏ ʟ ɪ ᴄ ᴀ ♆

User avatar
Aclion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5774
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Aclion » Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:11 pm

Ceranapis wrote:- Address people’s underlying concerns. As well as pointing out that immigrants aren’t to blame for unemployment, stagnant wages or stretched public services, politicians need to implement policies to address these problems.

Addendum to this, acknowledge their underlying concerns: Immigrants produce a net gain for the economy as a whole; but because most are laborers, not professionals they tend to supply more blue collar services and demand more white collar services. This means that the impacts of bringing in immigrants aren't shared equability throughout society, the benefit goes to those who are already advantaged and the costs go to those already disadvantaged. This is something that needs to be address independently of border policy, because even with open borders occupational licencing still restricts immigrant's ability to compete in white collar fields. Refusing to acknowledge this is effectively saying that immigration is good, so long as they only compete with poor people.
Last edited by Aclion on Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
XKI:Deputy WA Secretary, former TITO Tactical Officer and Emissary to Forest[/region]
TEP: former Deputy Minister for WA affairs
Forest: Cartographer Emeritus
Oatland: Consul ,Caesar and Cartographer Emeritus

User avatar
Trollzyn the Infinite
Minister
 
Posts: 3228
Founded: Aug 22, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Trollzyn the Infinite » Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:21 pm

You can't, because it isn't.

Immigration is neither inherently a good or bad thing no matter what pseudo-progressives and racists (respectively) think or say.
☆ American Patriot ☆ Civic Nationalist ☆ Nondenominational Christian ☆ Third Positionist ☆
☆ \m/ Rocker & Metalhead \m/ ☆ Anti-Communist ☆ Anti-Fascist ☆ Islamophobe ☆ Anti-Trumper ☆

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."


Things I've Absolutely No Time Nor Patience For
永远不会忘记1989年6月4日天安门广场大屠杀

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46357
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:31 pm

Some people will never agree on this. Take solace in the majority agree with you

User avatar
La xinga
Minister
 
Posts: 3483
Founded: Jul 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby La xinga » Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:33 pm

Probably nothing, like an NSG argument, both sides have a 2% chance (about) of convincing the other side.
He created everything, and he was forever and will always be. He is perfect and his word is always true. He will never change his word, and YOU would not be reading this signature if it was not for him to allow your eyes to see!
Average religious person. Nothing collided with nothing, the Almighty did everything, and the world is 5781 years old. Deal with it.
No, please don't argue! I'm innocent!

Yes, we may too, may all of us be innocent.

Unless you're not...

WAMP WAMP!
#KAG2020

If you support capitalism, put this in your signature.
Hi, The east pacific!
GLORIOUS AMERICANIUM IMPERIUM!
Creationist, pro-life, straight.
ALL LIVES MATTER!

Nation in TEP. Don't endorse me if I am over 400 endos. Still a long way to go!

User avatar
Underrail Protectorate
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Aug 03, 2020
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Underrail Protectorate » Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:21 pm

Immigration Is something that I see as being bad, because we should take care of our own people first, and by putting others first we risk endangering our own.
Also as people we have to realize that certain religions and cultures are not compatible with our own. Such as Islam which is a religion which supports murdering of non believers and homosexuals.

Also with convincing people. Try telling them that better immigration is good, and not more. It's a better argument than telling them you want more people instead of better people.
Last edited by Underrail Protectorate on Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FutureAmerica
Diplomat
 
Posts: 730
Founded: May 20, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby FutureAmerica » Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:22 pm

If the crime rate soars after immigration influx, then it is bad for the citizens.

User avatar
Zvyozdny
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Aug 02, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Zvyozdny » Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:23 pm

What? You can't defend your opinions yourself and you have the audacity to stand behind them? Fucking hell, get out of your ideological molds.

User avatar
Punainen Suomi
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 166
Founded: Mar 17, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Punainen Suomi » Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:27 pm

It depends on who you're trying to convince. Personally, I would go for a data-driven approach, examining the net benefits of immigration in a tangible way rather than relying personal anecdotes and the like.
Socialist and anti-Imperialist.
Ceterum autem censeo America esse delendam.
Arbeiter, Bauern, nehmt die Gewehre, Nehmt die Gewehre zur Hand!
“The rise to power of the revisionists means the rise to power of the bourgeoisie. And indeed it is the worst kind of capitalism, it is like fascism. If one day the Chinese Communist Party no longer serves the interests of the people, then the people should rise up to overthrow it!” - Chairman Mao

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1397
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:32 pm

It's not inherently good.
Kathol Rift wrote:No, it shouldn’t be renamed. George Washington was the first President, and without his leadership, this country probably wouldn’t exist today. I’m not saying he was all sunshine and rainbows, but we can’t just ignore history in favor of political correctness.

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46357
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:34 pm

The Reformed American Republic wrote:It's not inherently good.

Why not?

User avatar
La xinga
Minister
 
Posts: 3483
Founded: Jul 12, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby La xinga » Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:37 pm

San Lumen wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:It's not inherently good.

Why not?

Underrail Protectorate wrote:Immigration Is something that I see as being bad, because we should take care of our own people first, and by putting others first we risk endangering our own.
Also as people we have to realize that certain religions and cultures are not compatible with our own. Such as Islam which is a religion which supports murdering of non believers and homosexuals.

Also with convincing people. Try telling them that better immigration is good, and not more. It's a better argument than telling them you want more people instead of better people.
FutureAmerica wrote:If the crime rate soars after immigration influx, then it is bad for the citizens.
Last edited by La xinga on Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He created everything, and he was forever and will always be. He is perfect and his word is always true. He will never change his word, and YOU would not be reading this signature if it was not for him to allow your eyes to see!
Average religious person. Nothing collided with nothing, the Almighty did everything, and the world is 5781 years old. Deal with it.
No, please don't argue! I'm innocent!

Yes, we may too, may all of us be innocent.

Unless you're not...

WAMP WAMP!
#KAG2020

If you support capitalism, put this in your signature.
Hi, The east pacific!
GLORIOUS AMERICANIUM IMPERIUM!
Creationist, pro-life, straight.
ALL LIVES MATTER!

Nation in TEP. Don't endorse me if I am over 400 endos. Still a long way to go!

User avatar
Atheris
Minister
 
Posts: 2562
Founded: Oct 05, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Atheris » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:14 pm

You can't. It's not good, nor bad. It's a very complex issue that you can't label as black and white.
Kannap wrote:It is I, the stranger in the night who cuts the power lines with hedge clippers
Ceranapis wrote:"Who needs a country when you can write Ace Attorney fan fiction?"
ema skye is the best AA character i love her so much
Nouveau Quebecois did nothing wrong!
The self-proclaimed Resident Shitposter of NSG.
Ace/aro. Cis he/him. Trans ally. ADHD, autistic-like brain.
"To comment is human, to preview, divine." - Godot
Orthodox Preterist Lutheran Christian.
I write AA fanfiction. Fuck you if you judge me.
WA RP nation: Union of Sovereign States and Republics

User avatar
His Excellence
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 185
Founded: Sep 13, 2017
Left-wing Utopia

Postby His Excellence » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:29 pm

Perhaps this applies more to the United States than elsewhere, but in my experience, one of the major factors that seems to entrench anti-immigration views is how often the rhetoric in support of immigration absolutely ignores the term 'illegal' when referring to illegal immigration, and treats immigration on either side of legality as the exact same discussion. There certainly are issues with the legal immigration system that need to be reformed in order to protect law abiding migrants from wrongful deportation, but it's practically impossible to have that conversation in a productive manner when the pro-immigration side has largely been hijacked by people who want to just abolish borders entirely and give endless handouts to anyone who comes knocking.

Some people are absolutely xenophobic and won't stand for any form of immigration, but the first step in winning the support of those who are more moderate in their anti-immigration stance is to acknowledge that they even exist; treating the entire spectrum of beliefs and reasoning against immigration as if all of them are at that far end of unflinching xenophobia only serves to convince the moderates that you have no interest in their concerns, while vulcanizing the extremists. That's not a recipe for dialogue or compromise.

I feel that a very key aspect to the discussion is best summed up by Trump's remark on Mexico's "bad hombres" and how it is interpreted by either side. In its original context, he is referring not to immigrants (or even illegal immigrants) as a whole, but specifically to those attempting to border cross under the radar for the explicit purpose of committing or furthering criminal activity. There absolutely are good decent people who illegally cross the border for entirely non-malicious reasons, but there are also those who cross for the purpose of spreading criminal influence (in the form of violence, drug trafficking, and even human trafficking). When Trump is talking about "bad hombres," he is referring solely to the latter, even though his opponents desperately want to convince us that he is simply "criminalizing human beings".

That kind of blatant misrepresentation has consumed the entire atmosphere of discussion on the issue, and only serves to convince both sides that anybody who opposes them is monstrously self serving with no concern for the ramifications of their actions.


If you truly want to reach across the aisle and convince people opposed to immigration to compromise with you and be more accepting, you must also be willing to compromise. You must be willing to hear out their concerns, acknowledge that neither side of the debate is entirely perfect, and acknowledge that bowing to the extremists who demand the removal of all immigration oversight is not the answer.

If anything, the best way to convince people to the side of supporting immigration, is to support funding for border control and immigration services, to support politicians and policies that encourage quality of immigration over quantity. You can't just tell people that their beliefs are wrong, you have to prove it to them.
"Any violence committed by my side is justified, because my side is fighting against unjust violence and bigotry.
Therefore, anybody whose political affiliation differs from ours is a fascist deserving of death.
It is our right to attack and destroy whoever/whatever we want without consequence, because we are demanding peace and justice.
You do not have a right to disagree with us, to defend yourself, or to try to stop us, that would be an oppression of our freedoms."
Defund the rioters.
Sci-fi democratic socialist utopia.
Any discrepancies between my nation and my stated beliefs results from the divide between idealism and realism.
I would never trust real human beings in positions of authority to be as benevolent as my fictional government.

User avatar
Saiwania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17575
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:35 pm

It depends on the person. You can't convince me that the immigration that the US is currently allowing for itself is good, because I know for certain that it means accelerating the trend of that country becoming majority non-White (if it isn't already). Hence, it is always going to be bad from my perspective.

Unless we're talking about immigration from majority White countries like those in Europe or some South American enclaves like German Argentina. That sort of migration just isn't happening anymore however, in today's context. That time has come and gone, which was primarily during 19th century. Europe is now too desirable a region to live in, for many people to want to leave it if they live there.
Last edited by Saiwania on Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Neuer Deutsches Reich
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Jan 21, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Neuer Deutsches Reich » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:37 pm

Immigration is good, but must be limited to not exceed the amount the society can handle and it needs to be done legal. No matter your story, illegal means immediate return back. Another thing is integration. If they decide to not integrate and instead shit on the country they are in, you shall be returned to the country you apparently prefer. You don’t want to learn the language? Too bad for you.

How to convince more immigration is good. How much was it in the beginning? In my feeling more is not better. It must stay limited. No immigration is also bad.
Last edited by Neuer Deutsches Reich on Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Economic Left/Right: 1.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.44

Pro: Europe - centrism - conservative - nationalism - LGBTQ’s - exploration and colonisation - life - racial and gender equality - freedom of speech - conscription - discussion


Anti: fascism - communism - AntiFa - multiculturalism - SJW - feminism - globalism - illegal immigration - pacifism - extreme religious

User avatar
Sao Nova Europa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 929
Founded: Apr 20, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sao Nova Europa » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:40 pm

You can persuade conservatives and libertarians whose primary values are materialistic that immigration, for the most part, has a net positive impact in the economy. That is well documented by many economists and think tanks. In Europe, you can also point out that immigration can help countries facing demographic crisis, and thus subsequent problems in social security and other aspects of the economy. In America you also have the added advantage that your country has always been multiethnic and open to migration, so you have an easier time persuading people that it is not 'unnatural' to have large-scale migration.

For those of us who reside in European ethno-states (Greece in my case, or Hungary, or Poland) and who do not place materialism/economic growth/viability of social security as primary factor in our politics, you would have to persuade us that a) immigration would not alter the demographics of the country and that X ethnic group (Greeks, Poles, etch) will remain overwhelming majority, b) immigration would not affect the culture of the country and that people coming here will become Greeks/Hungarians/Poles/etch in everything (from language, to traditions, to converting to local denomination of Christianity).

If you can make assurances about those two points, those people might be willing to relent and accept limited immigration. The argument that would persuade me to accept migration would be; "legal, limited, and those who immigrate meet certain economic criteria and are willing to integrate".
Signature:

"I’ve just bitten a snake. Never mind me, I’ve got business to look after."
- Guo Jing ‘The Brave Archer’.

“In war, to keep the upper hand, you have to think two or three moves ahead of the enemy.”
- Char Aznable

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
- Sun Tzu

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1397
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:41 pm

Neuer Deutsches Reich wrote:Immigration is good, but must be limited to not exceed the amount the society can handle and it needs to be done legal. No matter your story, illegal means immediate return back. Another thing is integration. If they decide to not integrate and instead shit on the country they are in, you shall be returned to the country you apparently prefer. You don’t want to learn the language? Too bad for you.

How to convince more immigration is good. How much was it in the beginning? In my feeling more is not better. It must stay limited. No immigration is also bad.

Agreed. People like this should be kept out.
Kathol Rift wrote:No, it shouldn’t be renamed. George Washington was the first President, and without his leadership, this country probably wouldn’t exist today. I’m not saying he was all sunshine and rainbows, but we can’t just ignore history in favor of political correctness.

User avatar
Novus America
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36193
Founded: Jun 02, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Novus America » Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:26 pm

The problem is two assumptions:
1) That immigrants are fungible
2) That immigration is a black or white Hobson’s choice.

1) is obviously false, the Boston Marathon bomber was clearly a bad immigrant, while Albert Einstein was a good immigrant. Therefore saying immigration on the whole tends to be a net positive completely misses the point. Immigrants are not fungible and interchangeable.

Basically everyone supports immigration to some degree. Hell even the KKK would allow WASP immigration and want more WASP immigration.

Which move on to point two. Immigration has a lot of subtlety, it is not simply a matter of more or less. Rather the question is how do we determine what is the best number of immigrants? Who makes a good immigrant? Who do we let in and who do we not?

Those are the questions that matter. We do not necessarily need more or less immigration, we need BETTER immigration, and what defines good immigration is a complex matter subject to great disagreement.

I actually support more immigration BUT I want more of the immigrants that are the best fit for us, not just any immigrants.

Each immigrant is unique. Some are good, some are bad, and some are better than others.

Thus simply convincing me we should have more immigration is not sufficient for me to agree with you on immigration policy at all, you would have to show me how a system you propose improves the quality of immigration, not simply the quantity.
Last edited by Novus America on Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
___|_|___ _|__*__|_

Zombie Ike/Teddy Roosevelt 2020.

Novus America represents my vision of an awesome Atompunk near future United States of America expanded to the entire North American continent, Guyana and the Philippines. The population would be around 700 million.
Think something like prewar Fallout, minus the bad stuff.

Politically I am an independent. Pragmatism is my ideology.

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1397
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:31 pm

It should be noted that some people want to use immigration as a form of demographic warfare and a cheap way to get votes.
Kathol Rift wrote:No, it shouldn’t be renamed. George Washington was the first President, and without his leadership, this country probably wouldn’t exist today. I’m not saying he was all sunshine and rainbows, but we can’t just ignore history in favor of political correctness.

User avatar
Novus America
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36193
Founded: Jun 02, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Novus America » Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:32 pm

San Lumen wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:It's not inherently good.

Why not?


Was the Boston Marathon Bomber good? Obviously not.
Each immigrant is unique, so you cannot say immigration is good not bad without further clarification. Some immigrants are good, other immigrants are bad, because some people are better immigrants than others. Because people are unique individuals not a fungible commodity.
Last edited by Novus America on Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
___|_|___ _|__*__|_

Zombie Ike/Teddy Roosevelt 2020.

Novus America represents my vision of an awesome Atompunk near future United States of America expanded to the entire North American continent, Guyana and the Philippines. The population would be around 700 million.
Think something like prewar Fallout, minus the bad stuff.

Politically I am an independent. Pragmatism is my ideology.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Ansarre, Aureumterra III, Bing [Bot], Duvniask, Grinning Dragon, Jerzylvania, Kanadorika, Kowani, Minskiev, Navich, Nilokeras, Novus America, Rathalas, Rusozak, The Greater Ohio Valley, The Rich Port, Thermodolia, Vaspelia, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads