[DarkKomunalec]

Holding the interests of your own country above those of others is by definition nationalism, and almost any opposition to immigration is labelled xenophobia.

They are, and have historically been, the policy for the vast majority of countries, and are advantageous positions for a population to have - is that all it takes to be far right?

[mercurysmessage]

The problem is that we don't live in the 1800s, we live in a global market, and consumers want the best products available. Additionally, these are people, why would we limit the movements of people?

Immigrants help Countries they move to, they build the economy and workforce, and are the only reason why the US does not have an aging population as bad as Canada, Japan, and many other nations. Opposition to immigration is xenophobia.

Historically, many things have been bad, and/or wrong. Mental Health treatment, treatment of the aboriginal people, food safety, environmental policy and protection. How is history any sort of an argument?

[DarkKomunalec]

History was not the argument - it was to illustrate that what you consider far right has been and is common.

> we live in a global market,

Treating local businesses preferentially does not mean abolishing international trade. Just look at China, or US agricultural subsidies, or tariffs, or countless other examples.

> Immigrants help Countries they move to

Countries, perhaps, but what about the local people? Don't they compete for the same jobs, driving down wages? Vote and take advantage of common resources (drinking water, arable land, existing infrastructure, etc.), reducing the political and economic capital of the locals? Encourage policies for more immigration, instead of policies that would encourage parenthood? Won't immigrants look out for their own interests more than for those of the local population?

Let me rephrase that last question - is racism real?

> Immigrants [...] are the only reason why the US does not have an aging population

It's a sick society indeed that can't even sustain its own population. And instead of improving itself, it makes up the shortfall with immigration. Do you really believe immigration is the only way to sustain population levels? Why can other countries manage without?

[mercurysmessage]

Common, but not as common anymore since it doesn't make as much sense.

> Treating local businesses preferentially does not mean abolishing international trade. Just look at China, or US agricultural subsidies, or tariffs, or countless other examples.

Yes, this is true, they can both exist together.

> Don't they compete for the same jobs, driving down wages? Vote and take advantage of common resources (drinking water, arable land, existing infrastructure, etc.), reducing the political and economic capital of the locals? Encourage policies for more immigration, instead of policies that would encourage parenthood? Won't immigrants look out for their own interests more than for those of the local population?

Why are you making this about us vs them? What is your purpose? Once they immigrate, they are the local population. Everyone takes advantage of those resources, tough. Parenthood doesn't need to be encouraged through policies.

> is racism real?

Yes, it's absolutely insane to me that you are even asking that. You must have lived a sheltered life to think it doesn't exist.

> And instead of improving itself, it makes up the shortfall with immigration

It won't sustain it's own population, this is on us, as a society, and due to changes in the job and technology markets, populations are shrinking dramatically. We aren't and can't force people to have 10 children anymore, that just won't happen.

Other countries don't manage without, what are you saying? They allow immigration, and the population is still shrinking.

What do you have against immigrants, against immigration?