Is it racism to be against immigration?

Post Reply New Topic

The left and liberals in Sweden are saying that it is.

Right wing in Sweden is against immigration becuse they say we have already have MANY immigrants comming. In fact, Sweden has taking most refugus per capita in Europe.

They dont adept and Sweden have put much money on immigration which have give negative effects on hospital, jobs, bulding houses etc. The goverment in Sweden prefers the immigrants before helping their own people and country. And they want to make the immigration even bigger, much bigger.

Is it racism to be against this? Is the liberals and the lefts in Sweden doing the right thing?

Important note: almost everyone who is comming to Sweden is arab muslims from middle east.......and they are very religious at the same time is Sweden very secular....its like 2 diffrents world facing eachother, I dont understand why the left and liberals want this....they have goon so far thaat they are saying that giving crititc to Islam is racism. But its okay to give critic to any other religion.

Liberals love to throw the charge of racism at people that don't agree with them. It's their substitute for facts and rationale but it doesn't work with me. In all fairness, as someone whose ancestors were European immigrants I can't be against LEGAL immigration but I am and will continue to be against ILLEGAL immigration.

The charge of racism doesn't stick with me (my Korean niece and the black, Latino, Irish, British, Catholic, Muslim and American Indian men I have dated in my life might disagree with that statement, of course, hehe). BTW, they generally agreed with my opinions about immigration.

I stand by the original meaning of racisim, which means to hate an individual or group based on their race. With that in mind, no, you're definitely not being a racist.

Only if the opposition to immigration is racially motivated.

Those that are pro-immigration are not necessarily on the left.

Actually the old left in various guises in Europe have been anti-migration, and were the ones that opposed the EU, when conservative parties championed them. For instance Tony Benn and that generation of labour politician wasn't in favour of EU. People left the party to form the social democrats becuase of these views.

I'm Euro-skeptic (except for trade relations), but broadly pro-economic migration as a trade liberal (which is not really left wing). I just say that these people have to pay in, to get soemthign out, and they are not autonomic citizens.

If people want to come to your country that is a sign than the economy doing well or has potential.

However economic migration is soon to become irrelevant in many markets. It is in mine. People can compete with me where ever they are int he world, so complaining about migration is moot.

Some people might oppose immigration for racial (ie., 'racist') reasons, some might oppose immigration for other reasons.

But if people oppose immigration for racist reasons, so what? There's nothing wrong with that. No race of people can survive in the long run without discriminating in favour of their own kind.

I think that illegal aliens and immigrants that do other crime should be deported. There is nothing racist or any mention of race in my stance. If any was found it actually came from the PC hallucinations that liberals often mistake for reality.

There is a difference between "refugees" and "immigrants". Sweden is nowhere near home to the most immigrants per capita in Europe. It's still overwhelmingly dominated by ethnic Swedes (and, incidentally, the biggest immigrant groups are Finns and former Yugoslavians like Ibrahimovic). Ethnic Celts are functionally extinct. And regardless, you're nowhere near Jordan, where 25% of the population are refugees.

Wanting your government to stop taking refugees (less than 1% of the Swedish population) is not racist, it's just illiberal and selfish. In the red corner: people dying in Syria or camps in Jordan and Lebanon. In the blue corner: a few Swedish people feeling slightly uneasy for reasons they can't quite pin down.

Immigration is generally a good thing for Western countries. Immigrants provide a net economic benefit. In the UK at least, they are significantly less likely to commit a crime. Despite that, immigration is widely unpopular, because the perception doesn't match reality. I would suggest that the reason for this is that anti-immigrant stories are a more compelling narrative, and also that we're all a bit bunch of xenophobes and racists.

Slightly more nuanced view that Humanaut there - Humanaut says you are racist if you are against immigration because you don't want dark skinned people polluting your country; I say you are a different sort of racist if you give more credence to stories which confirm your anti-immigrant prejudices.

Of course, we all give more credence to stories that reinforce our pre-existing world views, so once you decide you're against immigration for perfectly sound reasons, you're dancing with the devil. Not to say you shouldn't be against immigration, you just have to be capable of exercising your critical thinking if you want to do so and not be racist - at least, more so than otherwise.

Almost the whole raison d'etre for the existence of the United States is emigration away from oppression.

It is racist to say that people should be kept from immigrating if they are members of a particular race.

It is not racist to be against immigration in general, especially in places that already have a hard time taking care of its own citizens.

It is certainly not racist to be against illegal immigration, or immigration that occurs because the immigrants are exploiting a loophole in the current laws that permit them to completely bypass established and legal due process.

My ancestors legally immigrated to this country. My wife and her relatives legally immigrated to this country. The way we feel about illegal immigrants is the same way we feel about people who cut in line ahead of us and get the better seats - that is, cheated.

Yep.

No it's not racist. It's being realistic. Culture and original citizens suffer when other cultures swell in numbers.

There is good long term economic reason for immigration, but that has to be balanced against all other factors.

Look at Australia vs USA. Same sized landmass. Huge difference in population. The US has about 12 times the population of Australia, which equates to about 30 times the fiscal ability. The ability of a nation increases exponentially with population. But in the short term, it does cause displacement, division, cultural pressure, and other things, which leads to unrest, oppression, violence, and other negatives - all in the short term. Sometimes, that unrest lasts longer. Just look at how violent the US is, but at the same time, when you want something done, who do you call? The US.

I think each nation has to decide where it stands. I'm glad some nations protect their culture. And I'm glad other nations allow themselves to become homogenized. We need all types, not just one or two.

I didn't say that. I said that racially motivated opposition to immigration is racism.

Quite. I was pulling out a specific, slightly flippant example to illustrate what I perceived as your point. If you feel my seemingly-broader definition also describes your position, then I apologise for using your name.

Racially motivated opposition to immigration is racism. Nothing more. Nothing less.