1. I am not concerned with just the US, but US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. These are all my compatriots. You can just say white people. Don’t be scared. 2. The foreigners are increasing housing prices and exacerbating the housing crises around the West, they definitely help add to wage suppression as the labor suppoy increases, but they are also drains on the welfare systems in regards to finances but also availability and access such as with the NHS in the UK Foreign immigrants are not increasing housing prices. Increased cost in building materials and private equity businesses buying up single family homes are. In fact a higher demand on housing usually leads to more well paying construction jobs and increases in money flowing through lower education requirement employment, which leads to further economic expansion as contractors are able to increase the amount of business they do. 10% of US homes are owned by corporations. 34% of homes are rental properties. If 44+% of existing homes cannot be purchased to own by single families, the prices will increase as the corporations/landlord see fit. I was actually interested in new home construction subsidies as it would help flood the market with more housing thereby driving costs of renting down and devaluation of the 44% of homes owned by corporation/landlords. Legal Immigrants pay taxes into the systems of healthcare, so any ‘drain’ is only a drain insofar that there are unemployed people utilizing the services. The UK is seeing a 4.8% unemployment rate as of today compared to a 7.6% unemployment rate in 1990, thereby meaning that there are more people paying into the system today, even with the large increase in immigration, versus 30 years ago when the system was effectively being “drained” at a higher rate. 3. With DEI or affirmative action initiatives, it is a strict negative across the board. When you aren't taking in the best and you are giving free advantages to brown and black people, that necessarily takes away the role that would naturally be replaced by a more capable person. This is common sense. This effects the white man that gets replaced, but also because of the reduction in competency as a result of, by definition, utilizing DEI to not pick the most competent candidate you affect everybody that works in the firm, all the clients that contract that firm, and everybody else in society in general from not empowering competency. When it comes to stuff like H1B as well, this is not really actually being used to just poach the best of the best top talent, but as a tool of wage suppression so they don't have to pay the native software developers for example that would expect to be paid more money. __ This is again, an argument centered around lack of competitiveness in a global market and prescribing that you need the government to limit visas to stay competitive in your own country. You’re claiming businesses are purposefully hiring unqualified workers? How does that make sense as we’re seeing record growth of tech companies, in terms of advancements and inner development, if they’re hiring more unqualified workers? And granted, there are statistics showing that H1B workers do get paid a lower wage comparative to native born workers, in the US; but, is this an argument for fair wages across the board or that American workers won’t take a position for 80K-140k, an average of jobs from the tech sector from lower web devs to data scientists, a year? A wage that can support a stay at home mother as well as multiple children even sans benefits like healthcare and whatnot that usually come with positions at companies like these. And what if a white woman was helped to get a job by DEI policies? Because it isn’t just for “black or brown” people. 3. Next is the concern of the cultural. It absolutely matters that MY homeland is MY homeland. I want my country to be my country, when I go outside, I want a community of people that share my core values and interests. I don't want to live in Pakistan. There are some cultural differences which are fundamentally irreconcilable. Especially when you're speaking religious differences, the interests and policies a muslim vs a secularist would impose are irreconcilable. See: "Islam is right about women" as a trope that plays on this. I have a right to live in my own culture in my own home. Period, where people look like me and speak my own language. In many places, they also tend to be vastly more criminal than the native population in some serious aspects. Consider the islamic rapes and killings across Europe or the illegal immigrants in the US. Even 1 ethnic Frenchman being killed by a foreigner is a death of a person that France is actually supposed to be by and for that is not supposed to happen. __ I’m from a military background where it was highly diverse generally. Generally my viewpoint on this is that you cannot break someone into adopting the culture of where they live, you have to make the culture where you live stronger so that it becomes the overwhelming comfortable norm. When is the last time you reached out to someone who may be on the fringes of your culture and invited them to become closer to you and adopt parts of your culture? That obviously won’t work with dogmatic theocratic cultures, but is a possible bridge to build instead of removing parts you don’t like. More often than not this line of thinking is rooted in xenophobia and a misunderstanding of cultural differences that most people of that culture likely align with your core beliefs on. I’m not sure what you mean by evoking “MY homeland” needs to feel like my homeland. Are you suggesting that you no longer feel like you belong? And if so, in what ways? Harkening back to my point of xenophobia and when was the last time you attempted to bridge the gap. I’ve never left my house and felt like I didn’t belong, this is an extremely subjective topic in terms of cultural atmosphere. But, I’m the type of guy to go to an Indian market and buy foods I’ve never tried or appreciate an authentically prepared lengua sandwhich from a Mexican market. My wife is from a generations deep Georgia base of the Appalachia family, and coming from my mixed heritage Italian/US Iowa family there are things I’ve tried for the first time with her family and vice versa. Where is the line drawn on cultural differences becoming more of an issue vs. more of benefit to a society? Sorry, you don’t have a right to control the appearance and language people use in free western democracies. If you like that style of governance China has been controlling languages that minorities can learn in and what cultural norms can be adhered to, such as beard growth with Uighur peoples. Sounds like you’d agree more with that way of governance versus free democracies. As far as religious beliefs go, I don’t like what Sharia law has done to the people of Afghanistan, Iran, etc. this is why, in the US, one of the most fundamentally important ideas is a separation of church and state. The federal government, and states as of the 14th amendment, cannot establish a religion for the population. This is what protects us from the adherence to a religious practice or religious based law. You may follow whatever you want, but it cannot be forced upon others. There is no correlation or data suggesting that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than natural born citizens in the US. Even with increased immigration we’ve been seeing new record lows for crime year over year. In fact, the same thing is reflected in UK crime data. 4. The Political aspect: Unfortunately, we live in a democracy. This means that the foreigner will also be enfranchised. The foreigner will always be incentivized to vote in favor of foreigners, and to suppress things that would support the native traditional population. This creates voting pressure to let in more foreigners, which creates more pressure, in a runaway feedback loop. But furthermore, the foreigner also does not have the same cultural context that creates the same political values. It's well known that Republicans win the white vote, for instance. It's also known that Zohran Momdani won the mayorship, but people born in New York did not actually vote for him as their top choice, it was foreigners that dominated the vote and voted him in. When you import Syrians, you are going to add pressure to make the political system appeal more to Syrians. Same goes for any other demographic. — I’d argue, and so do republicans, that those escaping countries controlled by regimes that don’t align with western ideals, such as Cubans who voted in favor of Trump, have a more nuanced and experienced view of what can go wrong when the government goes in a direction of that which they escaped. Our founders were escaping religious persecution and founded a country in which they didn’t want that to happen. They wanted to create a nation that would allow for freedom of religion and wrote in that the federal government could not institute a state religion. They were also escaping taxation under a system that did not favor the needs of the colonies, which were being exploited for its resources and labor. As far as the founders go, they were migrants from a Europe that did not agree with the way they wanted to live. __ 5. Geopolitical There's also the case of geopolitical alignment. We are aligned to Europe because they're our kin. We have nothing to do with Pakistan. However, if you let a bunch of Pakistanis in, all the sudden what's in the Pakistani interest will be a voting block that you have to cater to. This happens quite a lot in the UK, where they're trying to get infrastructure built in their homelands lol. __ We are aligned with Europe because they are a democratic nations and trade partners, that has a history of 100 of years of cooperation with our interests. Mind you, the one part where we were literally in a world war with a European nation that was going against the western world’s free democratic interests even though they “were our kin.” Pakistan is an interesting reference as the UK has a deep history with Pakistan. We’re not enemies of Pakistan, they simply have a culture that is out of reach of many people to interact with, so it remains the ‘mysterious east’. They are a republic and “The 1950s reforms in the government administration, the constitutional law and jurisprudence in Pakistan have been greatly influenced by the United States Of America ' legal system.” That’s called winning global culture wars. The main issue is the theocratic non separation of church and state, blasphemy laws, etc. The UK and Paki have bilateral trade valued around £5.5bil. There’s a large relationship there, however I don’t agree that they should be focused on problems abroad vs. problems at home. But the airport request, which is what I’m assuming you’re talking about, was just that, there’s been [no promise](https://fullfact.org/online/misleading-claim-mps-letter-airport-mirpur/) or report of any UK taxpayer funding or UK money going to the airport. But if you want to leave that geopolitical power to China, who have started to use infrastructure as pseudo-imperialist loan sharking, then so be it. But that doesn’t seem like a good way to strengthen the UKs global standing or power at home. __ 5. There's many reasons why the replacement affects me. They are trying to end my people. If this isn't enough reasons for you, I don't know what else you need. __ False, that’s a feeling some of those in power want you to feel brother, and keep you focused on that instead of living your life. 6. America was built by immigrants The founders weren't immigrants, they were colonists, settlers, and founders. Immigrants come to a country already built, the people that came to America originally were the builders, and the builders of America actually extended beyond the immediate founding due to the frontier and the expansion west meaning more land was constantly being expanded and incorporated. What does "america was built" mean? To me, that's the civic institutions, the Constitution, the political system, the culture, the ethos, the legal foundations of the Country. These were all built for European blooded men, and the founders. Not from Ranjeet who comes here to take advantage of what's already built. If you're gonna go into some "what about Chinese immigrants and the railroads" shit, it's obvious to me that the architect is far more important to building a nation than the laborer. Otherwise, we should be prepared to say Jews built Egypt and let them have Egypt because they were slaves and built some shit, it's a stupid nonsense argument. The founders explicitly built America by and for European Christians, they literally say it universally. __ If they were emigrants from Europe, they were immigrants to the US. You’re using synonyms. Colonist just means first immigrant. The foundations were built by philosophers with a deeper understanding of history and governance gravitas at the time. John Locke, the natural rights and social contract. Voltaire, Montesquieu, Bacon, Hume, basically all enlightenment philosophers including classical philosophers like Cicero and the Stoics. Most of which weren’t very religious, consisting of Deists, atheists, pantheists, materialists, and some Christians. The bulk of their governmental processes came from those that understood the importance of religion but not the personal adherence. I suggest you read some of these men. Especially Hobbes, Hume, Bacon and Locke. And many of these people incorporated lessons that they had learned from anyone they could learn from. Including from times during the Hellenistic period where India, and other eastern thoughts were being introduced to philosophers via the Silk Road and Rome’s spread into India. 7. what century and what border This is you not understanding that the nation is not the land. The land that Germany is in, is not Germany. Germany is about where the ethnic Germans live. The Native Americans didn't live in the United States of America, they lived on the land that the USA was also built upon, as another example. The entity of Germany doesn't care when it is or where it is, all that matters is that it is defined by its Germanness. And no. The USSR or Russians did not build Ukraine, Ukraine has been a distinct nation for a veeeery long time. The Russians didn't built the Kyvian Rus. The Soviet Union was an imperialistic project dominated by Russia yes, but the Ukrainian nation never ceased to exist during that time, same as how the Kazakh nation never ceased to exist. You just really don't know your own history on this, Ukrainians have a rich history of being their own distinct people. __ This was just the fun one. Cool topic. You kinda skipped over the fact that the pan Slavic nature of the Kiev Rus and that it covered from Finland to the Black Sea, opposed polish empires, included Russians, and it wasn’t until the mid 19th century that Ukrainian Nationalism and Identity were more prevalently formed. But that’s kinda my point. In the turmoil of medieval Europe, people changed how and where they identified as a specific group. It fractured, grew, changed and was pretty amorphous due to the religious, imperial and local regional influences. It wasn’t until Napoleon shattered the Holy Roman Empire that the countries began to develop the intent to hold the national and ethnic identities closer. But even then they redrew lines across peoples that saw themselves as the other which lead to revolutions and upheavals and whatnot. A lot of these peoples care more about hyper local regional influences and structures and just fell under a state they eventually agreed with, meaning that ethnicity and national identity simply came from what was most culturally easy to dissolve into. National are born from choices and if people want to make the choice and immigrate to, the US in my case, and be an American I’m more than all for it. I appreciate the conversation and truly value some of the input you gave me to think about. That was sick dude. I hope you get something from mine as well.