Why Don't Liberals Move to Europe? (Or North Korea?)

Post Reply New Topic

Only about 30% of English people are of non-Celtic descent, actually. I talked about this in the 'evil' country thread. Britain is a colonised Celtic country that's had its original culture destroyed by its current ruling class.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 18 Nov 2013, 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

you're BOTH full of it.


The Muslims are Europe's wet backs, and Braceros, who are willing to do the scut work and the stoop labor that the locals wont do. Europe is next to North Africa, and the middle east- so they get their lowly brown skinned laborers from the Muslim world. Just like we Americans get ours from the Catholic countries of Central and South America.

THAT is the main reason "Europe gets the Muslims". The same reason the USA gets the Hispanics.

WTF use would a White American immigrant be in Europe? Youd just be competeing with the White locals for the good jobs.

Also its a legacy of colonial empires. Pakistan has legal ties to Britain, and Algeria has legal ties to France, from the days of European colonialism that facilitate immigration as well.

Oh no, I agree with you about immigration in Europe. I just think it would be fun if the USA had another civil war - would change the global political landscape for the better, imo.

I think it is mismentioned, that europe would seek on purpose specially people with muslim religion. Religion is something private here, that doesnt count for, you simply offer people jobs that have the skills you want. The muslims simply stand a bit out, because of their religion, so you mention them more.

When it comes to France and England, I think its simply based on the colonial times. During their colonial times in foreign country, they spreaded their language there. So many people in foreign countries learned either english or french in school. If you are deciding to work outside your country, and you can choose from a variety of similar country, its pretty logical to choose the ones, whose language you already learned. So people from old french colonies often choosed france or Louxemburg, while people from old english colonies often choosed England. But that goes for pakistan or north african muslims, as well as for indian Hindus. My home country Austria was in earlier times owner of a great empire, including many east and south easteuropean country. So german language was a bit spreaded there, and most of those people seeking job outside their country, did as well to do so in a country, that they at least knew a bit, and understood some words of the language. During the world war the Austrian and German empire hat as well boundaries with the turks, because of them being enemies of the Englands. There have been economical contracts as well, about new scientologies like trains and such stuff, in which Germany was good with. In the end it leaded to most foreign workers in Austria and Germany coming from easteuropean countries, that were before part of the Austrian empire. When, because of the communism, free travel were no longer available for most east european citizens, and german and Austria needed workers turks were motivated by companies on purpose to seek work in Germany and Austria. So jobagents came there and searched for people, willing to move to Germany and Austria for working.

So most of the relations between a country and the origin of it foreign workers, simply relie on historical and geographical facts, less because someone decided to search on purpose people with these or that religion or origin. If I decided to work outside my country, I would just as well favor countries, that either allowed me to speak german, french or english.

in case you're also referring to my post: I didn't mean they sought muslims specifically, just that a lot of these immigrants happened to be from muslim countries.

I don't have any interest in moving to Europe. But if I had to move, I could probably be perfectly happy in certain EU countries. North Korea would not be a match (you obviously don't understand the difference between liberalism and communism). In fact, my life would probably be better off in Europe.

If you Libertarians had to move to Somalia how would your lives be? Despite the fact that Somalia should be a utopia for Libertarians. No government controls. Right to own any type of weapon you wish, with no restrictions. Something the US has never been and never will be. But instead of that, you would all rather stay here and b***h and whine endlessly and try to drag the US down that hole.

Actually, I am finishing my schooling, and if it were not for asinine border restrictions, then perhaps it would be a tad easier for me to immigrate. And as for Somalia, it does not have something called the rule of law. I will counter though I have found an ideal country . Sark . And is it really libertarians who caused the financial problems? Or was it Woodrow Wilson and company that dragged us down that road. Why are you so tyrannical? Why can't I refuse to pay taxes? Maybe egalitarianism/ liberalism is a defunct theory, as with most modern isms . And just to let you know, I know the difference. Quit comparing libertarianism to Somalia. If that is the case, liberalism is to NK as libertarianism is to Somalia . Why must you control people in order to get what you want?

Because the grass is only greener when you stay on your side of the fence. Also taken in to consideration that American-style liberals would have to pay higher taxes if they decide to immigrate to most European countries and worked there compared to the USA; you probably got a large part of the answer there.

Also they might profess a superficial liking of Europe, in reality they probably despise it.



Unless you are an illegal then, just like in America, changes are low you will be send away because of claims of human rights violations.



Lets see, here in the Netherlands you would probably refer to the PVV. The party that let Rutte I fall over a point he was willing to comprise on to get the toughest possible immigration policy possilble under the present political climate (and Wilders presented it as a major victory for his party) so they might claim to represent that sentiment but in practice do not. But then again he is not that different from his former party (VVD, one of the liberal parties) in that regard, or the SP (Socialist Party) for that matter.



In the sense that high levels of immigration if part of free market economics and helps bigg business to keep wages low, the answer is yes. The irony is that the lax immigration policy of the UK was largly the responsibilty of Labor who wanted it to use as a power politics tool.

We are practicing what we preach. We are bringing European style sanity to our own country. Like it or not, most issues identified with liberal values are held by the majority in the USA! Liberals aren't selfishly seeking a comfortable place just for themselves, they want to change politics everywhere.