i dont mind immigrants who are hot white men with big muscles and hairy chests

The fact that basically every political party has handling immigration as one of the main selling points is telling enough.

Yet none of them seem to really do it.
And you ain't allowed to talk this problem either if you live in the Unfree Kingdom

To be brutally honest, I'm not really that against SD in Sweden, but I still feel that something is just wrong with them. Though, they have become a lot better than when they started out.

And from how people vote, a lot of Swedes think the same. I might not agree with it, but I don't want to say what people should vote for or not.

Anyway, I'm torn on the question. But it has more to do with a lack of screening, plans, and general ideas how to do it than anything else. I just want people to be nice, and if they aren't, then, well, again, to be brutally honest, I don't want them here. We can't do that with people who are born here, but we can for people who weren't.

All I'm asking for is people to be decent and make the world better!

I think the immigration issue is a big problem in the west and I feel it is an exploitation of the European's high levels of empathy.

I wouldn't even be thinking about immigration if it wasn't for war.
Unfortunately, having insane country close to yourself does that.

Immigration on that scale is a logical consequence on how the systems work. The problem: Most parties want to keep the system, while at the same time being "the good guys" who "fight" for "human rights". But it´s mutual exclusive, so it wouldn´t lead anywhere. And it was clear 30 years ago how this would work out.

Depend where it comes from.

Migrants are mere smart people trying to invest in themselves.
The markets are open for their investment

It's definitely showing us that the war on terror was one we lost.

We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands…

I think the problems with immigration are greater in Europe than in North America. Since that's what you brought up, I'll focus on that. Also, I'm a 2nd generation immigrant from an Arab country myself, but believe me when I say the biases stemming from this cut both ways.

I can't deny that "hands-off multiculturalism" has failed in Sweden and other places (France, Belgium, Switzerland and Germany especially). But my views on the topic lie on the center-right. I believe in assimilation, not "remigration" of law-abiding citizens, which really is just ethnic cleansing.

Shut down the radical mosques (not just those that directly incite terrorism), close the private religious schools. Demand that immigrants learn the official language and incentivize them to disperse as opposed to forming enclaves in certain neighborhoods. I'm even willing to consider bans on ostentiatious religious items, such as burkas. The native culture must supersede that of the immigrant in public spaces.

But, this is a two-ways street. The racist and xenophobic rhetoric adopted by the European far-right only makes integration more difficult and less attractive. Besides, far-right rule and Islamic rule are two sides of the same coin. The AfD in Germany or RN in France flirt with fascism.

Tl;dr : I'm center-right on this issue. Immigration in Europe was horribly handled, but the far-right would have the EU run to the other extreme, causing only more damage.

It's perfectly fine as long as it's in reasonable numbers that you fully integrate. Although I am firmly opposed to remigration, criminals and those who won't integrate should still be deported out of rational reasons, as compated to the disingenuous hysteria of conservative and nationalist politics.

Just never forget the nuances of integration, as most issues are not imported but are rather already ingrained in a country's system.

I don't see any way in which immigration is a crisis. Here in the States, we have vast swathes of unoccupied land, and our cities are filled with vacant buildings. The real problem is capitalist greed which prevents people from using the multitude of empty spaces, both urban and rural.

The U.S.A. is a country of immigrants, and the descendants of immigrants at this point in time. The native population is under 9.7%, and I think that's including people who are considered native by blood quantum. The U.S.A. has somewhat of a proud history as a melding pot nation, where cultures come to meet and blend their cultures together. It has a proud history as a land of opportunity for people from places that are less well off to do who helped to build it up. Immigrants from all parts of the world are not bad.

However with all of that having been said, a nation's first responsibility is to its existing citizens, and a country needs to keep immigration under control to keep itself safe, sustainable and sovereign. So if you came over to a nation illegally, and there is no provision in law to rectify your particular law (as is the case with legitimate asylum seekers), then you are not welcome. Legals stay; Illegals self-deport or get the boot. If they self-deport, maybe they can come back and try again via the proper channels.

And yes, increased enforcement activity is going to lead to a greater number of law enforcement errors assuming the rate of enforcement errors is the same. This is why we have due process (and due process needs to be respected in all areas of law, practical or not, as a first priority, to protect the innocent).

However, although I can maybe see where Trump is coming from with that loophole, I do consider "anchor babies" to be lawful citizens. This is necessary for two reasons. The first is because otherwise the citizenship provisions of the 14th amendment fail to do the very thing they were designed to do, which is invalidate the Dred Scott provision.

The second is because whether such is stipulated in Trump's executive order or not, he is not the one who gets to arbitrate who is and is not a U.S. citizen if his loophole is valid, so while his intention is for his executive order[www.whitehouse.gov] to only be applicable 30 days after its implementation, it would in fact apply retroactively across all time because the 14th amendment has no stipulation restricting its operation to 2025 onwards. Many people would ultimately find that their citizenship status is invalid because their great, great, great, great great grandparents weren't citizens, or worse yet, their citizenship status is revoked due to some defect in the record-keeping.

The only good and proper way to address anchor babies, if they are such a large problem as to even need addressing, is via constitutional amendment.

Also holy crap the U.K. is dumb. How the heck do they have an illegal immigrant problem as an island nation (meaning they have a natural moat), with no nearby impoverished nations. The U.S.A's. problem is understandable because it shares such a large land border with a much more impoverished nation, and nobody in any part of Latin america can even get to Canada without first reaching the U.S.A., and by that point there isn't really much of a point in trying to get to Canada.

But the U.K. is the northernmost part of Europe, more or less, and you have to go through oh so many other well off to do nations before you even get there. This can only be explained by the incompetence or willful neglect of state officials.

And I absolutely would not have a "one in, one out[www.whitehouse.gov]" deal with France, because France has a responsibility to ensure the people within its borders respect the U.K's. territorial integrity in the first place.