No, first one is just expats. Totally different thing…
“Ex pat” vs Immigrant…
Watch a British “ex pat” spit blood when you call them an economic migrant.
You could crosspost this to r/uknews or r/GB_News. Half of them are so dense they wouldn’t realise it’s satire.
Reddit confused about immigration of communities of culturally similar peoples and how that could possibly be different from immigration of peoples from culturally regressive communities.
Yeah… first was very good for the natives whos life, land, language, culture, religion etc changed forever.
But when others come here there is a heavy need to mention assimilation and respecting the land and laws.. something the Europeans never did back then 😂
3% of Britain is Indian 🇮🇳 What % of India is British 🇬🇧?
flip it around, if the blue one is “good” why was the red on “bad”?
But but but English people live abroad toooo wahhhh wahhh wahhh
I’m picking up good migrations
These would be the same people that complain when someone doesn’t speak English and wants to be able to have their own food tastes available but expects English to be spoken in every other country and expects to be able to buy English food in every other country.
Who the hell is migrating to Siberia?????
Reverse them most of the time you would immigrate to the better country so the second is good immigration as they are calling our country better
I saw some yank in another comment section on a post about something similar to this go “Settlers, not migrants.”
So when white people do it they’re settling, when other people do it they’re immigrants.
Sure.. People going all over the world – fine.
People from all over the world coming to one small location? – not fine.
Those bloody British folk, coming here as a skilled professionals and integrating peacefully our society.. spending their savings and pensions to boost our economy..
Question, do 3rd world countries think the same? Do they think that them coming to Europe is good migration and Europeans going there is bad migration?
Ahh, yes, the Clipperton Islands off the coast of Anáhuac 🩵
I read that to the tune of the beach boys
Don’t people get that it’s a lot of people coming to a small island? How do people lack capacity?
Bad migration is any that the natives don’t want.
Do you think theyre just gonna sit there, or is it more likely that they get pissed off and choose violence?
I’m sorry why aren’t we meant to be on the side of our own people again? 🤔
Both things are different, as one is our own, and the other is not.
Disregarding that, right wingers aren’t in favour of doing any of this today, but believe we should look more domestically instead.
I mean, yeah.
Top one measurably improved the infrastructure and development of the countries involved.
Second has the opposite effect.
Shit
Good migration: brought technology and infrastructure
Bad migration: food and music I guess
There’s migration, them there’s expats, then there colonisers
Small island expands to outer world. Bad! 👿
Entire world comes to small island. Good! 😇
Is anyone from the UK complaining about Portuguese people coming here and not adapting to our way of life? I haven’t heard it
The first one is inaccurate. The numbers just aren’t the same. I think you missed the biggest point of the last 50 years
I mean without sounding right wing the difference is one is correct terminology the other isnt one is immigration other is migration the distinct differece being one can leave and provide for themselves other leaves as a result of war genocide etc and cannot provide for themselves. Skewing the scenario doesnt help the argument that people who need asylum should be provided for but yeah
Conquest vs immigration
What are the numbers then?
The thing I always find funny with these simplistic takes is that it seems to imply that all these countries welcomed the British with open arms, welcomed multiculturalism, were branded racists when they said “there’s too many British here”.
Maybe the real immigration is the friends we made along the way
Good migration. Employment. Paying taxes. Filling talent gaps. Contributing to society. Wanted.
Bad migration. Unemployment benefits. Working black market. Costing society. Organised crime. Unwanted.
That applies to both diagrams btw – arrows in, arrows out.
E.g. good migration – Portuguese farm workers in the UK.
Both are bad, but 7.5 billion moving to a location that has a population of 550 million sounds like a disaster
It’s pure hypocrisy by the European countries to complain about migration. In the past, they invaded all the other continents, committed wholesale slaughter, destroyed their cultures, robbed them of all their art and wealth and treated them as something less than human. And they regarded themselves as good Christians.
I mean yeah… people from a small population spreading out into a much much much larger area.
Also people generally of higher standing in wealth and likely education so provide to the countries they arrive at, and doing so legally. (Let’s be real it’s ludicrously expensive to migrate out of Europe)
VS
Allot of people from all over the world and the largest population areas going into one tiny little area.
From lower income areas and often from 0 income inorder to reap the benefits of a wealthier country, and doing so illegally or via asylum seeking.
Now I’m not saying I have an issue with immigration, I love globalisation and my only issues with the entire process is from misplaced government spending not with any individuals, but this image kinda shows the exact opposite of what I expect you were hoping to achieve.
37 comments
No, first one is just expats. Totally different thing…
“Ex pat” vs Immigrant…
Watch a British “ex pat” spit blood when you call them an economic migrant.
You could crosspost this to r/uknews or r/GB_News. Half of them are so dense they wouldn’t realise it’s satire.
Reddit confused about immigration of communities of culturally similar peoples and how that could possibly be different from immigration of peoples from culturally regressive communities.
Yeah… first was very good for the natives whos life, land, language, culture, religion etc changed forever.
But when others come here there is a heavy need to mention assimilation and respecting the land and laws.. something the Europeans never did back then 😂
3% of Britain is Indian 🇮🇳 What % of India is British 🇬🇧?
flip it around, if the blue one is “good” why was the red on “bad”?
But but but English people live abroad toooo wahhhh wahhh wahhh
I’m picking up good migrations
These would be the same people that complain when someone doesn’t speak English and wants to be able to have their own food tastes available but expects English to be spoken in every other country and expects to be able to buy English food in every other country.
Who the hell is migrating to Siberia?????
Reverse them most of the time you would immigrate to the better country so the second is good immigration as they are calling our country better
I saw some yank in another comment section on a post about something similar to this go “Settlers, not migrants.”
So when white people do it they’re settling, when other people do it they’re immigrants.
Sure.. People going all over the world – fine.
People from all over the world coming to one small location? – not fine.
Those bloody British folk, coming here as a skilled professionals and integrating peacefully our society.. spending their savings and pensions to boost our economy..
Question, do 3rd world countries think the same? Do they think that them coming to Europe is good migration and Europeans going there is bad migration?
Ahh, yes, the Clipperton Islands off the coast of Anáhuac 🩵
I read that to the tune of the beach boys
Don’t people get that it’s a lot of people coming to a small island? How do people lack capacity?
Bad migration is any that the natives don’t want.
Do you think theyre just gonna sit there, or is it more likely that they get pissed off and choose violence?
I’m sorry why aren’t we meant to be on the side of our own people again? 🤔
Both things are different, as one is our own, and the other is not.
Disregarding that, right wingers aren’t in favour of doing any of this today, but believe we should look more domestically instead.
I mean, yeah.
Top one measurably improved the infrastructure and development of the countries involved.
Second has the opposite effect.
Shit
Good migration: brought technology and infrastructure
Bad migration: food and music I guess
There’s migration, them there’s expats, then there colonisers
Small island expands to outer world. Bad! 👿
Entire world comes to small island. Good! 😇
Is anyone from the UK complaining about Portuguese people coming here and not adapting to our way of life? I haven’t heard it
The first one is inaccurate. The numbers just aren’t the same. I think you missed the biggest point of the last 50 years
I mean without sounding right wing the difference is one is correct terminology the other isnt one is immigration other is migration the distinct differece being one can leave and provide for themselves other leaves as a result of war genocide etc and cannot provide for themselves. Skewing the scenario doesnt help the argument that people who need asylum should be provided for but yeah
Conquest vs immigration
What are the numbers then?
The thing I always find funny with these simplistic takes is that it seems to imply that all these countries welcomed the British with open arms, welcomed multiculturalism, were branded racists when they said “there’s too many British here”.
Maybe the real immigration is the friends we made along the way
Good migration. Employment. Paying taxes. Filling talent gaps. Contributing to society. Wanted.
Bad migration. Unemployment benefits. Working black market. Costing society. Organised crime. Unwanted.
That applies to both diagrams btw – arrows in, arrows out.
E.g. good migration – Portuguese farm workers in the UK.
Both are bad, but 7.5 billion moving to a location that has a population of 550 million sounds like a disaster
It’s pure hypocrisy by the European countries to complain about migration. In the past, they invaded all the other continents, committed wholesale slaughter, destroyed their cultures, robbed them of all their art and wealth and treated them as something less than human. And they regarded themselves as good Christians.
I mean yeah… people from a small population spreading out into a much much much larger area.
Also people generally of higher standing in wealth and likely education so provide to the countries they arrive at, and doing so legally. (Let’s be real it’s ludicrously expensive to migrate out of Europe)
VS
Allot of people from all over the world and the largest population areas going into one tiny little area.
From lower income areas and often from 0 income inorder to reap the benefits of a wealthier country, and doing so illegally or via asylum seeking.
Now I’m not saying I have an issue with immigration, I love globalisation and my only issues with the entire process is from misplaced government spending not with any individuals, but this image kinda shows the exact opposite of what I expect you were hoping to achieve.
Comments are closed.