I know there are some people out there who believe that they are "citizens of the world" and some people who have big compassionate hearts. I guess that's one reason for Angela Merkel's policy of unrestricted immigration and open borders. To me it comes down to one simple question: Do you believe that the primary role of the government should be the safety and well-being of the citizens of the country?
I don't know if you'll get much argument about the role of government being the well-being of its citizenry. You'll probably get a lot of argument about what activities promote or detract from that well-being. As an EU citizen, I see the border policy as one aimed at promoting the well-being of the citizenry. I also don't see it as an open border -- the internal borders are open and the border countries and other points of entry are controlled. Whether they do a good job or not is more a question of execution than philosophy. I also see the magnanimous policy regarding refugees in the EU and in the US as serving our "self-interest properly understood" as de Tocqueville put it.
Hello, I am American and caint see mah option: role of gubmint is to screw the little guy, make money for politicians and oligarchs, and slowly eat itself until it caint hardly function.
the primary concern is to carry out the agenda of central bank owners and the council on foreign relations
The primary role should be to eliminate all remaining taxes on the wealthy so we will finally have trickle down and be very very happy with so many jobs that we won't believe it as promised by Donald Trump.
That's an overly broad or subjective question, and in the context of your scenario somewhat muddled after two or three generations.
You'd be surprised at the type of deluded leftists here who think otherwise. I seen @rocketsjudoka advocate for giving equal opportunity and prioritization for non-Americans as Americans.
Do you see the massive immigration of refugees as promoting the well-being of the citizenry? Personally, I see it as the leaders and government betraying the citizens.
The concept of opening immigration in the west has recently been a measure to grow a stagnating workforce caused by families having less than two children. It's not really whites being snuffed out but more from the propensity to breed less in the context of a modern lifestyle. Merkel did make it a humanitarian issue to take in an extraordinary amount of refugees, but without a sufficient nfrastructure to handle that huge number, it becomes a blockage that'll haunt Germany for years to come. Think Katrina but with a larger scope. With an infrastructure, they could one day become high functioning members of the citizenry with their own cultural contributions. But realistically, they're more likely to become an entitlement class like the Turkish wave decades before that to this day harbor pockets of uneducated, untrained and unemployed people.
Valid point. Japan has a similar but larger problem with very low birth rates, a very homogenous (and safe) culture, and a very aging population with the associated cost burden on a smaller tax base. (Not to mention massive government debt). How do you preserve your society while solving the other problems? I don't know.
Only if it directly did. Like locking or citizenry up in camps or sending them into unnecessary wars.
Yes, I see govt policies designed to give humanitarian relief to massive refugee populations as promoting the well-being of the citizenry. It reinforces the value of humanitarian relief so that our citizens can count on the hospitality of foreign countries if we ever become refugees in the future. It increases goodwill other countries feel toward us and reduces hostility and increases cooperation (and mitigates some ill will from the wars we fight). The refugees will be refugees regardless and you can deal with the problem within a legal structure or as a law enforcement problem -- the latter being the more expensive and problematic. Taking refugees reduces the volatility of the crisis they're running from by taking them out of the equation, making it easier for us to manage and resolve those problems. I don't deny the size of the refugee problem has been a crisis for Europe. It's more volume than they can comfortably handle. There must be a tipping point where the costs outweigh the benefits. I don't know if they've reached it or not. Over 80% on the poll right now say Yes.
Nice retort. Try your words next time. You would think that someone who lives in Germany would know this stuff... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement ...so, unless Merkel took office in 1985, your opinion about her effect on the "open borders" policy appears to be invalid.
Maximizing the value of the Executive's business holdings and that of his children's personal brands.
