That’s Sweden’s fault they can’t absorb immigrants.
The USA has a longer history of doing so. We have communities of people who hail from the same home country the immigrants are from to help them transition.
The UK is still protesting white immigrants–that’s so turn of the century. No one protests the Irish, Italians, or Poles.
Considerably different time frames between the UK taking in large numbers of immigrants and Sweden. I think blaming Sweden (perhaps blaming some Swedish politicians would be fair) is a bit off.
As a generally accepted liberal country, blaming Sweden seems to suggest rapid mass immigration is unworkable?
Taiwan need do better. The little nko shows some end up dead
Sweden has major problems with Refugees and their non-inclusion into the society…. Not immigrants that comes for work
Where does it confirm your utopian theory?
So it’s America’s fault that it can’t provide housing for illegal immigrants?
(NewsNation) — The number of immigrants who entered the country illegally and then struggled to find housing in sanctuary cities contributed to a record number of Americans who experienced homelessness in 2024, according to a new report.
Data released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development shows that more than 770,000 people struggle with finding a place to stay across the country on a single night. The report also indicates that the percentage of Hispanics dealing with homelessness grew by one-third over the past year and the unsheltered population among Latinos was twice that of the national average, due largely to increased migrant populations in cities like New York, Denver and Chicago.
The 18% increase in the nation’s unsheltered population was the largest year-over-year jump since HUD began tracking homelessness in 2007, The New York Times reported.
Nobody said anything about a utopian theory. He confirmed we live a better lifestyle because of illegal immigration.
That’s absolute nonsense. Big Macs are slightly cheaper in Australia, even though Australia uses better-quality, 100% locally sourced beef and doesn’t rely on ILLEGAL UNDERPAID LABOUR the way U.S. agriculture does.
Let’s call it what it is: not “migrant labor” it is illegal labor. Migrant labour is where they come in on proper work visas and get paid minimum wage. In Australia we use that for seasonal industries (like fruit picking) when we have a sudden need.
In Australia, farmers operate under strict labor laws, pay fair wages, and still keep Big Mac prices around $5.06, compared to $5.15 in the U.S. And remember, the U.S. used to cut costs by using ammonia-washed “pink slime” beef, which Australia never allowed.
So no, Big Macs wouldn’t magically shoot up to $24 without illegal labor, that’s just a lazy excuse to justify an exploitative system.
Yes, a few rich people can make a greater profit at a restaurant they own, have their house worked on for cheap… etc… I know some people who have illegal house cleaners in Taiwan who can for $1000NTD a day have their 4 story house sparkling clean from top to bottom. However… the $150,000NTD fine for hiring illegals would account to a lot of days of cleaning.
So how does Australia deal with its tens of thousands of illegal immigrants?
So… 70,000 people total? That’s a tiny fraction compared to the 10+ million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
And here’s the big difference: in Australia, if you’re undocumented, you can’t live a normal life. You can’t legally work (many on bridging visas aren’t allowed to), you can’t access most government services, and crucially, you can’t get a driver’s license.
In contrast, many U.S. states (like California, New York, Illinois) actively issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants and allow them to integrate more easily into daily life, despite lacking legal visas. That makes the U.S. situation fundamentally different, and much larger in scale.
Yes, Australia has issues with visa overstayers and exploitation, but comparing 70,000 people under heavy legal restrictions to America’s multi-million undocumented population with state-level protections and access is just not the same league. Let’s not pretend the two systems are equivalent.
Australia has a very different history than America. Texas and California were founded by illegal immigrants - that is, Anglos. The Mexicans (native Americans/Spaniards mix, “mestizos”) were there first and have been living there for centuries. It’s a much more complicated than your overly simplistic Australian model, a continent mostly composed of unhabitable desert that has a limited amount of resources and population it can accept. Perhaps Canada, which is very similar to Oz in that regard, would be a better comparison. Canada, as you know, has a more liberal and open immigration policy than the U.S. How has Canuckistan fared compared to Quokkastan?
Canada’s system may look more “open” through some rose tinted glasses… but even there, it’s points-based and selective it’s not an open door… As many left leaning Americans upset with Trump winning found out as they tried to cross the border…
You are the one always making comparisons.
You seem to think you have all the answers for the immigration issue in the US. I thought you would like to talk about the problem in Australia for once.
I bring up comparisons because Australia has the solution.
Australia runs a strict, controlled system:
Sure, Australia has some overstayers (about 70,000), but the system is designed to limit incentives for staying illegally, unlike the U.S., where millions can embed into daily life and even get driver’s licenses in many states.
I talk about Australia because we have the solution.
One Nation seems to think Australia still has a big immigration problem.
“Record immigration under Anthony Albanese is making our housing crisis worse, driving up inflation and overwhelming public services and infrastructure,” Senator Hanson said.
“We know from the Department of Home Affairs there are more than 75,000 people in Australia who are here unlawfully: overstaying visas, working illegally or having committed crimes. Under our policy they will be deported, and they will have no recourse to appeal to the Australian Review Tribunal.
One Nation has been crying “crisis” since the 1990s.
Australia has about 75,000 people unlawfully present, that’s 0.3% of the population. The U.S., by contrast, has over 11 million undocumented which is about 3% of its population.
The “record immigration” One Nation complains about is legal, points-based migration, tightly controlled for skills, family, and a limited refugee intake that Australia accepts under international obligations. Not the problem the U.S. is facing.
Also… in Australia, there’s no actual housing crisis.
My old man just grabbed a 5-bedroom house on 2 acres for AUD 40,000. Sure, it’s far from the city center but it is still close to a supermarket, a hardware store and a small appliance store, but it shows affordable housing exists if you’re willing to look beyond the inner-city bubble.
@justintaiwan can also tell you about cheapish houses near Melbourne, the options are out there.
The so-called “crisis” is really just inner-city crybabies whining that they can’t afford a front yard and backyard in their trendy neighborhood. They want the cafes, bars, bicycle commutes, and lifestyle perks, but they expect suburban space at urban prices.
There’s no national shortage, just a mismatch between people’s unrealistic demands and what they’re actually willing to compromise on.
Who exactly is pushing for open borders??
I am perfectly fine with bringing in skilled migration/temporary workers (that are needed). I take issue with people arriving illegally or overstaying.
But who exactly is pushing for open borders? Assessing claims of applicants (regardless of immigration status) within your border is not a push for open borders.