Oh yes. And automatically labeling anyone who has a view you disagree with a "bigot" (or worse), an increasingly common modern practice, is so incredibly intellectual and civilized, yes?


It's one thing if someone is being a blatant racist (which has specific, not vague, criteria), it's something else completely to make the rational argument, whether you agree with it or not, that a nation's resources should be spent on its own citizens, and not on immigrant populations. Especially ones who, from an objective perspective no less, seemingly refuse to integrate into the culture of the nation they've been so graciously allowed to move to.

If people from "The West", for example, wanted to or for some reason HAD to immigrate to, say, China, or India, etc., they would 100% be expected by that nation, rightfully so, to integrate into THEIR culture, to be able to functionally speak the language, to actually participate in the society, to acclimate themselves to their ways, etc. Yet somehow that is not expected by most "Western" nations of most immigrants.

Another case in point: If someone from the United States (of a non-Hispanic background), were to move to Mexico, or another Spanish speaking Central or South American country, they would, again, 100% be expected to be able to speak at least passable conversational Spanish, and to integrate themselves into Mexican (or whatever other) society. Yet immigrants from Mexico and other such nations, at least by many Americans, are treated as if they do NOT have to learn English (the primary language of the country), nor integrate into our general society. Instead, they are allowed to enjoy the benefits of living in our nation, yet still be able to essentially exist in their own satellite bubbles, not actually integrating into American society at large. Many not ever learning to speak a word of English, etc.

And again, objectively, this is not only accepted in the US, in most states it's even facilitated, especially in California. Yet this is most definitely NOT the case in reverse. Again, a non-Hispanic American, would be 100% expected to both speak Spanish and integrate into Mexican society, rightfully so.


It's an American (or Canadian, or Western) double standard that so-called "Liberals" push pretty hard for, that objectively speaking, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I were to move to Japan, I would be expected to speak at least SOME Japanese, and to integrate into Japanese society and "do as they do". It would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered "okay" for me to move to Japan, and only speak English, and continue to act and live as if I still lived in America. Not only would that be considered obnoxious and ignorant (even rude and disrespectful) on my part, but I also wouldn't be able to really survive acting like that. And yet, again, immigrants to many Western nations, are able to do exactly this, and not only get away with it, but thrive acting thus.


It's just interesting, and frankly even a bit frustrating, to point out. Everywhere else in the world, you would absolutely be expected to adapt and acclimate, integrate. Yet in Western countries, nope. Makes zero rational sense.

Oh yes. And automatically labeling anyone who has a view you disagree with a "bigot" (or worse), an increasingly common modern practice, is so incredibly intellectual and civilized, yes?


It's one thing if someone is being a blatant racist (which has specific, not vague, criteria), it's something else completely to make the rational argument, whether you agree with it or not, that a nation's resources should be spent on its own citizens, and not on immigrant populations. Especially ones who, from an objective perspective no less, seemingly refuse to integrate into the culture of the nation they've been so graciously allowed to move to.

If people from "The West", for example, wanted to or for some reason HAD to immigrate to, say, China, or India, etc., they would 100% be expected by that nation, rightfully so, to integrate into THEIR culture, to be able to functionally speak the language, to actually participate in the society, to acclimate themselves to their ways, etc. Yet somehow that is not expected by most "Western" nations of most immigrants.

Another case in point: If someone from the United States (of a non-Hispanic background), were to move to Mexico, or another Spanish speaking Central or South American country, they would, again, 100% be expected to be able to speak at least passable conversational Spanish, and to integrate themselves into Mexican (or whatever other) society. Yet immigrants from Mexico and other such nations, at least by many Americans, are treated as if they do NOT have to learn English (the primary language of the country), nor integrate into our general society. Instead, they are allowed to enjoy the benefits of living in our nation, yet still be able to essentially exist in their own satellite bubbles, not actually integrating into American society at large. Many not ever learning to speak a word of English, etc.

And again, objectively, this is not only accepted in the US, in most states it's even facilitated, especially in California. Yet this is most definitely NOT the case in reverse. Again, a non-Hispanic American, would be 100% expected to both speak Spanish and integrate into Mexican society, rightfully so.


It's an American (or Canadian, or Western) double standard that so-called "Liberals" push pretty hard for, that objectively speaking, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I were to move to Japan, I would be expected to speak at least SOME Japanese, and to integrate into Japanese society and "do as they do". It would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered "okay" for me to move to Japan, and only speak English, and continue to act and live as if I still lived in America. Not only would that be considered obnoxious and ignorant (even rude and disrespectful) on my part, but I also wouldn't be able to really survive acting like that. And yet, again, immigrants to many Western nations, are able to do exactly this, and not only get away with it, but thrive acting thus.


It's just interesting, and frankly even a bit frustrating, to point out. Everywhere else in the world, you would absolutely be expected to adapt and acclimate, integrate. Yet in Western countries, nope. Makes zero rational sense.

Good Summary.

No, it's a terribly reductive summary that completely extricates all subtleties and nuance of reality. 

Not really. Countries I know that easily accepts people that makes ghettos certainly include USA and Canada, but won't be that tolerant on Middle East.

"I won't be that tolerant on [folks from the] Middle East"

You literally just outed yourself as racist. How do you feel about that? 

I feel completely indifferent towards your opinion about me.

Will you counter and say that any country in Middle East you can be talking let's say Portuguese and being openly christian and that will be not only tolerated but applauded by local population and government policies?

Unless you lack reading skills to understand that it was being said about countries in Middle East (as compared to countries like USA and Canada) then you were just trying to make some dumb attack.

Trudeau is a clown, good video about current situation in Canada.

No, you literally said that you were going to be intolerant of someone based on their place of origin. By eliminating nuance and using a generalization to pre-judge, you've outed yourself as being bigoted. My 'opinion' on you as a person is irrelevant (though not very positive at all), you are a bigot based on your own admission and the words you've used to describe your intent. 

That's just one of many reasons to not like you. It's not the sole reason, but it's a contributing factor, to be certain.