Plenty of western mercenary groups supporting traditional land takeover by corporations, funding radical groups to destabilize effective governments forming or growing in strength is still ongoing.

None the less it continues to happen.

Immigration has had many negative effects on social cohesion in the UK. That is just an unfortunate fact. That is obvious if you have lived in poorer areas of some the cities in the UK.

When this subject is normally broached on TV channels such as the BBC. The argument often put forth is that we should accept large amounts of immigration because of the the British Empire and the wars in the Middle-East. It is often framed as if we should accept it as a form of punishment.

That is how many of the left talk about it. Some are more coy than others, but nonetheless that is the theme.

> But your government did not pay for reparations either, while at the same time, your government does hold other countries for doing so in their own wars (validly so).

So? The vast majority of the people in country literally had nothing to do with those events.

In the first chapter of "Anatomy of the State" this idea is utterly demolished.

> With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

...

Actually, no, by an immigrant from Poland.

It's almost immediately laundered back into London & Paris real estate and Swiss bank accounts.

Wait, you thought Western countries were handing out gibs/NEETbux to African countries just because they feel bad for them?

How are people supposed to get things right when they are constantly misled by both their governments and intuitions?

Even North Korea is more well developed despite being a isolated communist state run by a mafia.

Tbh I do think we should look to them for how they deal with the Muslims

Over the past 30-80 years, Western countries collected social security contributions from workers but instead of investing/saving them, spent it all like tax. To fund pensions for that now-aged generation, you need fresh, warm bodies to pay taxes.

Sadly, that generation (boomers) had q modest fertility rate. They also live significantly longer than when social security became a norm in the West. 20-30 years more. So you need to tax their kids aggressively for longer to fund pensions & benefits for the boomers. Oh, and since the boomers' kids are having even fewer kids, it's a vicious cycle.

One way to remedy this is to suck in taxpayers from other countries & put them to work paying for the comfort of the boomers until they shuffle off the mortal coil.

So, here are your options:

1. Cut off the boomers and let them starve. But, it's untenable since their votes are a huge bloc and they'd revolt.

2. Expel every single immigrant and tax receipts will plummet. Your indig. young people will pay even more taxes to fund the boomers, unless you revert back to No. 1. Again, not tenable unless you abolish your democracy and establish a dictatorial state.

3. Maintain the current model and let it drag on.

It did not have to be like this. You could have taken Singapore's path of accumulating massive reserves ($2.5 trillion for 6 million people), but you didn't. I hope you figure it out, but I don't think anything drastic will happen.

Just like in Greece, when European lenders told them to impose austerity, leftist parties claimed they'd get into power and maintain all the benefits they'd promised the people. Fuck the globalists.

But, they got into power and realized their finances were well and truly fucked and they had to quietly undergo restructuring despite all their huffing and puffing.

Many immigrants commit crimes, yes, and I believe they need to be repressed. But, many others gratefully work and pay taxes. If you want to expel them, you need to be ready for the options above. Even if you are, many of your countrymen are not.

3. Maintain the current model

How about another, more nuanced option: let in those immigrants who are willing to work (and, ideally, integrate), and not everybody?

And also, crack down on illegal employment. Maybe being an undeclared, underpaid cook in some EU restaurant is better than being bombed in Syria or shot by some random dictator's goons in Africa, but that doesn't really help the local society if it's unfair competition. If you accept people in, insist that they have papers and can afford to be regular members of society.

It's a you problem.