If you have data that shows negative effects of immigration I will genuinely look into it. But yeah, I find it important to debunk right wing talking points of immigration, they are based on hysteria not fact. I don’t know what exactly you’re talking about when you say mass migration. I’m advocating to completely legalize migration and give everyone an avenue for citizenship.

Globalist? Ok, that’s some conspiracy theory nonsense.

Do you mean internationalism? Because that’s completely different

Supporters of internationalism are known as internationalists and generally believe that humans should unite across national, political, cultural, racial, or class boundaries to advance their common interests, or that governments should cooperate because their mutual long-term interests are of greater importance than their short-term disputes.

The pathogens created by hundreds of years of isolation between the new and old world, due to the disproportionate access to animal husbandry, is both completely unrelated to modern immigration, and does not at all change the fact that Dehumanization and Settler Colonialism nearly eradicated native American people and erased their culture. So why bring it up? How can you consider genocide and settler Colonialism a ‘sprinkle’

• Erasing Indigenous History, Then and Now

• The Native American Boarding School System

What part of treating everyone as equals, including people immigrating, is ‘infantilizing’ to you? Immigrants, across the board, are responsible for less crime per capita. That is a fact.

If you’re worried about jihadist terrorism in Europe, you should look at the EUs findings. The cause is from online radicalization, not immigration.

• How to stop terrorism: EU measures explained

The causes and prevention of radicalization is important to consider, such as material conditions and marginalization. But attributing the actions of those individuals who do jihadist terrorism to all Muslims or Immigrants or their culture makes no sense. They are the vast minority and in no way represent Muslims or Immigrants as a whole. Limiting or restricting immigration would not prevent that kind of radicalization. Education, preventing marginalization, and promoting awareness are the ways to address that root cause of radicalization.

• Radicalisation in the EU: what is it? How can it be prevented?

The economic benefits of immigration also applies to European countries, despite the racist sentiments many Europeans have towards immigrants. Additionally, the West’s destabilization of the Global South, from war and climate change, has caused the increase in people seeking asylum and immigration.

The crackdowns on migrants and the deliberate two-tier immigration system is certainly a problem, and is deliberate in order to coerce illegal immigrants into very low paying jobs with no workers rights under the threat of deportation.

Immigration was not the cause of the genocide of the Native Americans, that was due to Settler Colonialism and Dehumanization. That is not like today. Immigrants are not settler colonialist like the early Americans. Additionally, it is the US citizens who are dehumanizing Immigrants, not the other way around. Immigrants are a positive, the only negative is the reactionary violence by racist far-right domestic terrorists.

From an economical standpoint, immigrants bring in more taxes and labor, which can go towards infrastructure and social infrastructure like education and housing

America is a nation of immigrants so I don’t really understand this argument. Cultures don’t really integrate that way, plus assimilation is a generational thing.

A 2018 study in the American Sociological Review found that within racial groups, most immigrants to the United States had fully assimilated within a span of 20 years. Immigrants arriving in the United States after 1994 assimilate more rapidly than immigrants who arrived in previous periods.

Measuring assimilation can be difficult due to “ethnic attrition”, which refers to when descendants of migrants cease to self-identify with the nationality or ethnicity of their ancestors. This means that successful cases of assimilation will be underestimated. Research shows that ethnic attrition is sizable in Hispanic and Asian immigrant groups in the United States.

By taking ethnic attrition into account, the assimilation rate of Hispanics in the United States improves significantly. A 2016 paper challenges the view that cultural differences are necessarily an obstacle to long-run economic performance of migrants. It finds that “first generation migrants seem to be less likely to success the more culturally distant they are, but this effect vanishes as time spent in the US increases”. A 2020 study found that recent immigrants to the United States assimilated at a similar pace as historical immigrants.

• Wiki

I don’t understand why the mods are removing responses to that guy either. It would be helpful to still have the removed comment visible, like under a spoiler or something and an explanation why by the mod

Lol got it, you didn’t read a single source. If you did you’d recognize which sources the video was referencing

I did debunk your quoted paragraphs about human shields and provided sources. Here is a video that details the situation if you prefer

Nice propaganda to justify Israel’s ethnic cleansing and targeting of civilians. That article is full of misinformation and not backed up by independent investigations.

Civilian Deaths and Human Shields:

Israel does deliberately targets civilian areas. From in general with the Dahiya Doctrine to multiple systems deployed in Gaza to do so: ‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza, Lavender, and Where’s Daddy. When it comes to Israeli Soldiers and Civilians, there is also the use of the Hannibal Directive, which was also used on Oct 7th.

Hundreds of Genocide Scholars have described this ethnic cleansing campaign as genocide because of the deliberate targeting of children/civilians and expressed intent by Israeli officials: “A Textbook Case of Genocide”: Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal Decries Israel’s Assault on Gaza, 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating ‘Crime of Genocide’ in Gaza , Law for Palestine Releases Database with 500+ Instances of Israeli Incitement to Genocide – Continuously Updated.

On the subject of Human Shields, there are some independent reports for past conflicts of Hamas jeopardizing the safety of civilians via Rocket fire in dense urban areas, two instances during Oct 7th, but no independent verification since then so far. None of which absolve Israel of the crime of targeting civilians under international law:

• HRW on Laws-of-War Violations 2009

• Agency Demands Full Respect for the Sanctity of Its Premises in Gaza - July 2014

• HRW - Palestinian Armed Groups’ October 7 Assault on Israel

Intentionally utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain areas immune from military attack is prohibited under international law. Amnesty International was not able to establish whether or not the fighters’ presence in the camps was intended to shield themselves from military attacks. However, under international humanitarian law, even if one party uses “human shields”, or is otherwise unlawfully endangering civilians, this does not absolve the opposing party from complying with its obligations to distinguish between military objectives and civilians or civilian objects, to refrain from carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, and to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians and civilian objects.

• Israel/OPT: Israeli attacks targeting Hamas and other armed group fighters that killed scores of displaced civilians in Rafah should be investigated as war crimes

• HRW - Gaza: Unlawful Israeli Hospital Strikes Worsen Health Crisis

Additionally, there is extensive independent verification of Israel using Palestinians as Human Shields: IDF uses Human Shields, including Children (2013 Report), and in the latest war Israel “Systematically” Uses Gaza Children as Human Shields, Rights Group Finds

Zionism is a settler colonialism project was able to start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a ‘modern’ way to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ of Europe.

Since at least the 1860’s, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it’s backing of the movement in order to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources.

That’s when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.

Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be ‘Transferred’ to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.

• Page 8, The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948

• 10 myths of Israel by Ilan Pappe, summerized and full book

• Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.

Why, because the word Arab?

Being uncertain about a poll’s sample size or methodology is one thing, but simply seeing ‘arab’ and discrediting the whole thing is just straight up racist.

Yeah the first poll linked disproves your last paragraph

What a surprise, fascists and white supremacists agree with Holocaust revisionism lol

Did you look at the actual polls linked?

I agree, but 5% is significant, especially nationally. In swing states, the second poll linked indicates it’s higher than 5% too

The second poll, linked in the last quoted paragraph, has info on the swing states

A significant share of Democrats and independent voters in pivotal swing states Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona are more likely to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee (presumptively Kamala Harris) if said nominee pledges support for an arms embargo to Israel, and if President Joe Biden secures a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The findings come in new polling commissioned by the Institute for Middle Eastern Understanding Policy Project and conducted by polling firm YouGov.

In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.

Overall, Democrats and independents in all three states examined in the exhibited YouGov/IMEU poll have strong support for a permanent ceasefire and disapproval of unconditional aid to Israel. At least 80% of respondents in each state supported a ceasefire, while more than 60% disapproved of unconditional military aid to Israel. Roughly a quarter of respondents in all states said the violence in Gaza — and candidates’ positions on it — is important to them and will likely sway how they vote.

You can find the details in pages 16-24 of the AAI poll linked in the first quoted paragraph

Edit: I’ll add screenshots here for visibility

I agree with the views of Israeli Historians Ilan Pappe, Avi Schlaim that a One-State solution is the only permanent solution. I still support a Two-State solution in the meantime, as a foundation for Palestinian emancipation, but the on-the-ground reality of the settlements dividing the West Bank into hundreds of enclaves eats away at the viability of a permanent Two-State solution. Religion is not the primary element of the conflict, despite the religious ferver of many settlers and rhetoric of Israeli officials. The primary element is still the expulsion and domination of the native Palestinians through the use of Settlements and Apartheid. There cannot be a ‘democratic’ Jewish State (an ethnostate), without a Jewish majority, which presents what is called the ‘demographic problem.’ in the words of Ben-Gurion:

There can be no stable and strong Jewish State so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 percent. - Ben-Gurion in an address to the central committee of the Histadrut on 30 December 1947

I don’t believe the Israeli Government would ever agree to a One or Two State Solution, not unless there is enough internal secular and external international pressure.

• How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution

• ‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe

• One State Solution, Foreign Affairs

Claiming ancestral history does not justify ethnic cleansing, Settler Colonialism, or the existence of an ethnostate. ‘Transfer’ has always been fundamental to Zionism. Zionism is not Judaism, despite, as Israeli Adi Callai puts it, its weaponization of antisemitism. Jewish people have lived in historic Palestine for generations, despite the mass ethnic cleansing of Jewish people by the Romans during the Jewish-Roman Wars. Which is exactly why a Secular State, based on religious tolerance and equal rights, is the right way to end this conflict.

• Palestine A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha

• The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948

• 10 myths of Israel by Ilan Pappe, summerized and full book

Oh my bad, I thought “I see an argument in favor of the settlements that I’m actually agreeing with” meant you agreed with the settlements.

My view on Zionism is that it is fundamentally a settler colonial ideology, one founded and currently engaged in ethnic cleansing. And that the Apartheid Regime needs to change into a Secular One-State with equal rights and right of return for everyone

Can I ask which part of the settlements you agree with?

I don’t know what constitutes leftist in Israel right now, but I do respect Ofer Cassif, Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Avi Schlaim, and any anti-zionist Israelis who are fighting for the equal rights of Palestinians.