this doesn't really address the issue, which is a claim like "we don't want people from these countries coming here". — Michael

What country is it that makes no distinctions about the number of immigrants from which countries may enter? It is the case that everyone who may wish to can not be accepted. Every immigrant from country A takes up the space that an immigrant from country B would like to occupy. Choices are made. Trumps list of preferred places might not be the same as mine, but there will be preferred sources of immigration.

I never voted for Brexit. — Michael

Glad to hear it.

What country is it that makes no distinctions about the number of immigrants from which countries may enter? It is the case that everyone who may wish to can not be accepted. Every immigrant from country A takes up the space that an immigrant from country B would like to occupy. Choices are made. Trumps list of preferred places might not be the same as mine, but there will be preferred sources of immigration. — Bitter Crank

I don't think the UK rations out immigration "places" by country.

Trump's comment seems more about a hatred of (and fear of) poor people than race. I imagine he referenced Norway because someone told him how rich it was. So for me, his major issue is that he's utterly ignorant and superficial, no more. I don't think race is anywhere on his list of priorities and if he is racist it's in a stupid no-nothing way not an ideological torch-bearing way.

Ok Miss Geography, how about correcting Mr. Politically Correct who called Africa a country?

You do have those Dan Quayle moments: "I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn’t study Latin harder in school so I could converse with them." I'll let it pass as a moment of inarticustupilackafecacleansia.

So, Mr. Politically Correct, how many Congoians would you want coming to the UK versus how many Dutch would you want? — Hanover

A sovereign nation can pick and choose who immigrates to it for a variety of reasons. The operative reason for denying Haitians, say, might be that they wouldn't contribute economically. — Thorongil

These are racist views to the extent to which they deny colonial history. Calling a country a shit-hole is implying its own people have shat in it. That nicely absolves your country of any responsibility. But the truth can be inconveniently different.

The Congo Crisis (French: Crise congolaise) was a period of political upheaval and conflict in the Republic of the Congo (today the Democratic Republic of the Congo)[c] between 1960 and 1965. It began almost immediately after the Congo became independent from Belgium and ended, unofficially, with the entire country under the rule of Joseph-Désiré Mobutu. Constituting a series of civil wars, the Congo Crisis was also a proxy conflict in the Cold War, in which the Soviet Union and United States supported opposing factions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis

Haitian poverty is a deep-seeded problem that started many years ago. During the 1700's Haiti was under French rule and was the wealthiest country in the New World and represented a quarter of France's economy. In 1801 a Haitian slave revolt defeated the French army and the newly independent colony became the first country in the New World to abolish slavery. France agreed to recognize Haitian independence if Haiti paid a large indemnity. This kept Haiti in a constant state of debt and put France in a position of power over Haiti's trade and finances.

The 20th century brought three decades of American occupation, multiple corrupt regimes, natural disasters, environmental devastation and HIV to Haiti. The United States gained complete control over Haitian finances, and the right to intervene in Haiti whenever the U.S. Government deemed necessary. The U.S. Government also forced the election of a new pro-American President, Philippe Sudré Dartiguenave, by the Haitian legislature in August of 1915. The selection of a President that did not represent the choice of the Haitian populace increased unrest in Haiti. In 1929, a series of strikes and uprisings led the United States to begin withdrawal from Haiti. By the time U.S occupation ceased in 1934, Haiti was left with a decimated economy and facing a future full of poverty and desperation.

http://poverty-haiti.weebly.com/causes-of-poverty-in-haiti.html

It is no secret why there are so many failed states around the world. To shove blame on the victims is indeed just shameful racism.

The Dutch don't appear to want the Dutch if you look at their birth rates. — Thorongil

Love the Netherlands. The Dutch people are friendly and competent. Dutch oysters are too strong-tasting. Love the name - Netherlands. Pais Bas. Lowlands.

Why would anyone want the Dutch? — Bitter Crank

I want Benkei Dutch or not.

You do have those Dan Quayle moments: "I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn’t study Latin harder in school so I could converse with them." I'll let it pass as a moment of inarticustupilackafecacleansia. — TimeLine

I didn't think you'd be able to impress me more than you already have. You know who Dan Quayle is? Maybe that's not impressive. Maybe it's obsessive compulsive. You know too much. Stop.

I knew Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle was a friend of mine. You're no Dan Quayle.

It is no secret why there are so many failed states around the world. To shove blame on the victims is indeed just shameful racism. — apokrisis

An irrelevant point. A country is a great or terrible place regardless of why. If I live like a king because I'm a ruthless murderer, I'm still living like a king.

You do have those Dan Quayle moments — TimeLine

I'm still adorable though, right?

To put it in comparison, after Katrina New Orleans was a shithole, and to call it a shithole would probably be an accurate thing to say. But it would be awful of the Mayor of some nearby, but not affected, city to say "we don't want people from that shithole coming here." — Michael

New Orleans was a shithole before Katrina though, and that's why Houston didn't want New Orleanese coming there.

lol? The links you provide prove the opposite of your argument. >:O >:O >:O

A country is a great or terrible place regardless of why. — Hanover

If you can’t see through your own shitty rationalisations then that’s on you.

The links you provide prove the opposite of your argument. — Buxtebuddha

You might have to explain why if you want to be taken seriously.

Haiti was a shithole, then France came, after which Haitians revolted, who proceeded to muck things up even more all by themselves.

You seem to be one of those people who imagines precolonial life in countries like Haiti to be paradises without problems. Have I the right of it or no?

If you can’t see through your own shitty rationalisations then that’s on you. — apokrisis

Nope. You're diverting the conversation with irrelevant sanctimony. We're all opposed to oppression and abuse. You're not special in that regard, and your comments are off point.

You seem to be one of those people who imagines precolonial life in countries like Haiti to be paradises without problems. — Buxtebuddha

We are talking about failed states and their reasons. So only an idiot or moral simpleton would attempt to judge an indigenous culture according to the social construct of “a state”. Ie: only a racist.

Again, how did my source contradict my point?

If you need more help with your history, try this...

Before the arrival of Europeans, Arawak (also known as Taino) and Carib Indians inhabited the island of Hispaniola. Although researchers debate the total pre-Columbian population (estimates range from 60,000 to 600,000), the detrimental impact of colonization is well documented. Disease and brutal labor practices nearly annihilated the Indian population within 50 years of Columbus’s arrival.

www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/History/Haiti-history.htm

A man with a guilty conscience, hey? Well, some hope for you perhaps.

Nope. You're diverting the conversation with irrelevant sanctimony. — Hanover

I believe he's trying to argue that because the citizens are not responsible for the poor state of their country it is wrong to assert that the poor state of their country reflects badly on the citizens.

So, yes, Haiti is a shithole. But what does that have to do with Haitians emigrating to the US? "They shouldn't be allowed in because their country is a shithole" is a clear non sequitur.

And because @Thorongil brought it up, here's a study on the economic contributions of Haitians (and Salvadorans and Hondurans), and the cost to taxpayers, GDP, and businesses of ending TPS: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/2017-04-18_economic_contributions_by_salvadoran_honduran_and_haitian_tps_holders.pdf

The short and skinny being:

Deporting all Salvadoran, Honduran, and Haitian TPS holders would cost taxpayers $3.1 billion dollars.
▪ Ending TPS for these three countries would result in a $6.9 billion reduction to Social Security and Medicare contributions over a decade.
▪ Ending TPS for these three countries would lead to a $45.2 billion reduction in GDP over a decade.
▪ The wholesale lay-off of the entire employed TPS population from these three countries would result in $967 million of turnover costs, e.g. costs employers incur when an employee leaves a position

Also of interest is this study on Haitian immigrants in the US: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/haitian-immigrants-united-states , which includes these statistics on employment:

Among Haitian immigrants ages 16 and older, 71 percent participated in the civilian labor force, compared to 66 percent of the overall foreign-born population and 62 percent of the U.S.-born population. Haitian immigrant women were also more likely to be in the labor force than the overall female immigrant population (66 percent compared to 55 percent).

So they certainly contribute.

These are racist views to the extent to which they deny colonial history. — apokrisis

A ridiculous accusation. I don't deny colonialism. I think colonialism positively and negatively benefited the countries that were colonized, but tend to think it was a net benefit in most cases, notwithstanding certain instances of horrific abuse. Note too that many countries have become shitholes without having been colonized or became shitholes when the colonizers left, all on their own. There is no right to immigrate, not even from a shithole country to a nice, safe country that previously colonized it. If a country wants to refuse you entry, it can, and it's tough luck for you.

Calling a country a shit-hole is implying its own people have shat in it. — apokrisis

Indeed. It's usually the dictators, government bureaucrats, and military police who "run it" who shit all over it, which is to say, run it into the ground.

New Orleans was a shithole before Katrina though, and that's why Houston didn't want New Orleanese coming there. — Hanover

Wilful ignorance of your own country’s recent history too....

Early reporting during Hurricane Katrina heavily used racist tropes and stereotypical narratives that often vilified the victims of the hurricane, whose impact disproportionately affected the low-income, but vibrant Black communities of New Orleans.

During the crisis, commentators from CNN to Fox News lampooned Black and poor New Orleanians for being unable to leave the city quick enough, while others devoted special news segments highlighting the “criminal element,” which condemned the “looting” by Black residents, many of whom had just lost their homes, their possessions, and who were facing dehydration and starvation.

These early reports helped shape the narrative that some were undeserving of national assistance and help, while heavily drawing on historical fears and tropes of a scary, lazy, poor Black underclass that is deserving of oppression and neglect.

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/Deserving-and-Undeserving-Victims-Reporting-Hurricane-Katrina--20150827-0041.html

I don't deny colonialism — Thorongil

You seem to be adopting a self-servingly narrow definition of colonisation. There really isn’t much point debating further unless you can make some actual counter argument.

If a country wants to refuse you entry, they can, and it's tough luck for you. — Thorongil

Yep. Might is right. A stellar ethical argument. The winning race is the superior race. Any Darwinian analysis tells you so.

Sorry, I just don’t have time for this racist bullshit.

I spoke of new immigrants. Moreover, if Norwegians, say, would be a greater economic boon to the U.S. than Haitians, then if economics is the relevant determining factor in deciding who gets to immigrate, the former will be allowed in and the latter not.

I might also add that the U.S. has sent quite a lot of money and resources to places like Haiti over the decades, so that would need to be taken into account when weighing the costs/benefits. As a last point, it would be bad for Haiti if we took their best and brightest and most economically productive people from them. Brain drain is a serious problem and vitiates against accepting large numbers of immigrants from poor countries. If one cares at all about these countries becoming less poor, low rates of immigration from them ought to be the ideal.

Might is right. — apokrisis

A non-sequitur.

Sorry, I just don’t have time for this racist bullshit. — apokrisis

Good, because I don't have time for absurd, unfounded declarations of racism.

We are talking about failed states and their reasons. — apokrisis

Haiti has failed, and much of their failure is down to their own people failing to run their country well at all. Your sources support this, so perhaps you should reread what you linked.

Moreover, if Norwegians, say, would be a greater economic boon the U.S. than Haitians, then if economics is the relevant determining factor in deciding who gets to immigrate, the former will be allowed in and the latter not. — Thorongil

This might be a good (economic) reason if you actually did have to choose between Norwegians and Haitians. But is there really so much immigration (and so much by Norwegians), that there isn't enough space left for the poorer Haitians? Obviously if the Norwegians are better than the Haitians then they're not exactly going to be competing for the same jobs.

A man with a guilty conscience, hey? Well, some hope for you perhaps. — apokrisis

You built an entire argument upon the false premise that referring to a country as a shithole implied the citizens were the cause of their status, then you jumped on your high horse and lectured us about how the citizens were victims as if we didn't know that, and then in exasperation you declared those disagreeing with you racists that you had no time for.

It sounds like you're saying we should accept them just 'cause. Or else, we should accept them because they do benefit us economically at least to some degree. Well, again, I would rather they benefit their home countries economically than ours.

It sounds like you're saying we should accept them just 'cause. — Thorongil

No. Just that there doesn't seem a good justification for seemingly racist remarks like “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here? We should have more people from places like Norway.” and "'Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out."