Tony wrote:

> Its the way these people deal with anyone who disagrees with them.
>
> If anyone mentions immigration, they accuse you of being racist, or a
> fascist. Then you're supposed to stop.
>
> Its worked well for many years, but not so well these days.

If it does not work, it's because many racists such as people who think of
immigration or an increase of foreigners mainly in terms of rising crime,
unemployment or other such negative aspects as opposed to, for example, filling
a need for labor, and also ignoring the needs of the foreigners who are present
legally, are ignorant of being racist and their own need to change.

> If someone calls you a racist, when talking about immigration, you can  be
> pretty sure you've won the argument, and they don't know what else to day.

No, it is people who think of an increase in foreigners in terms of rising
crime or unemployment, or more importantly, cannot justify their anti foreign
views in other, more effective ways who lose the immigration argument, not the
people who properly identify them as ignorant, bigoted or racists. Why don't
they address the fact that the majority of locals and citizens are committing
much more crime and also at a rising rate, or that local employers trying to
save money are the ones putting citizens out of work perhaps by the hundreds of
thousands, and that lawmakers are the ones who are inviting foreigners into the
country perhaps by the millions, instead of blaming foreigners for any
"problems"? Why don't people put the blame on modern society in general (e.g.,
the current generation of tens of millions who are unwilling or unable to
follow tradition) for loss of tradition instead of blaming a tiny minority of
foreigners?

As for the poster from the Netherlands who likes to look at a number of views
and is concerned about the needs of local citizens, I ask you: what of the
needs of the local population of foreigners, particularly if they are obeying
your laws to enter the country and bring in relatives? Why shouldn't locals or
the government better accommodate them? Why don't you try to better justify the
need for foreigners to change to adjust to local life (which I do support, by
the way), than the old this is not "their" country argument, as if the local or
traditional way of thought or lifestyle are the best or most proper way, even
for locals?

It is interesting that you choose to refer to "problems" when talking about
foreigners. Is this a conscious choice on your part? You immediately think of
foreigners or more foreigners as causing "problems"?