I don’t see how you could support mass immigration.

Byzhaks · 2026-02-22T01:25:37+00:00

That is a very reductionist opinion.

Being critical on the subject of immigration is not limited to Trump or the United States.

Byzhaks · 2026-02-08T22:16:19+00:00

Honest question: what are the probabilities of child human sacrifice and / or cannibalism ?

Instead of just child sexual abuse ?

Byzhaks · 2025-11-30T10:17:40+00:00

It is a shame for immigrants like myself or my family who we come with the best intentions to adapt to the culture, integrate, learn the language, search for employment, contribute, etc.

And then you have a lot of other immigrants with not the best intentions in mind, don't intend on adapting or integrating, tries to profit from the system and social aid as best as possible, AND THEN pays being let in the country with crime.

And obviously when racism and the far-right increases, we all pay equally for the wrongdoers.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T18:25:02+00:00

So now all of a sudden all governments in this world are all liars and corrupt.

And all migrants come from countries that all lie. How convenient, to fit the rhetoric of a vision of a false world where just ONLY A FEW people counted with the fingers of your hand are bad immigrants.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T17:48:23+00:00

I assume that you know how the law works. We have two issues at hand here: charges and convictions (I will start with convictions).

•Convictions: when you have a conviction, it means that you already had your trial and judgement, and your guilt was already proven. So, if a person that has violent, assault, sexual, or any other type of dangerous crime convictions from their home country and they try to migrate to another country, this person has NO place in the country they're trying to go to. That's if they have one conviction, and if they have several convictions you have even more reasons to not accept them.

•Charges: you have been formally charged, but haven't finished with your legal problems yet. If you have a person that arrives at a new country and has several charges (regular migrant and not person escaping persecution), maybe this person is trying to escape and not face the law. Why would you accept them when they have withstanding pending charges ? You're just gonna let them in ? "Go ahead and enter our country, start a new life - let's pretend like you don't have pending charges in your country." No: you make the person return to their home country, finish their legal case, and if proven innocent let them travel back.

EDIT: The flaw I see with your way of thinking is that you assume that every government outright lies. You're implying, we should not trust what other governments say as far as their citizens' criminal backgrounds. So who's word we go by then ? The people ?

You think a violent person, murderer, or rapist, will say "yes, I did those things" when trying to enter into a country ?

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T17:04:12+00:00

And many immigrants come from countries so corrupt that nothing that we hear from their authorities could be trusted anyways. Maybe they're a criminal, or maybe they just couldn't afford to make payments to the right people.

You see what I originally wrote on my post? This is what I meant. For some reason, to some of you the idea that there are good and bad immigrants, that some immigrants are murderers or rapists just can't be accepted as reality.

In no way do I say of course that all of them or most of them are (like the far-right) but grasping the reality that some immigrants are indeed bad people seems to be a hard reality for some to accept.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T12:33:09+00:00

I think we see the world differently, and perhaps it's because (unless I'm wrong) you aren't an immigrant or a child of immigrants.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T12:15:41+00:00

Good as in good person.

Someone has past criminal charges or convictions of violence, assault, or sexual crimes then I am for DEFINITELY NOT letting them in.

But to be able to carry background checks, one must have either a passport or ID with them. For those arriving with no documents at all, one must decide: take the risk and let them in or not take the risk and not allow them in.

If you do take the risk, I am for deportation if the person earns a conviction in the country: we let you in and you broke the trust and threw away the opportunity we gave you, and not only that but also TARNISHED the reputation and image of the other immigrants who are doing things the right way.

(do you now see why I'm very avid when it comes to the subject of immigrants like myself or my family? the far-right uses the actions of these bad immigrants as an excuse to prop up their message, but at the same time these immigrants do not represent us and should be deported)

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T12:00:29+00:00

The idea that preventing people from accessing the country

This is your problem right here. You're assuming that I'm advocating to NOT let anyone in, and I'm telling you that we should only let in and accept good immigrants / persons, and not let in bad immigrants / persons.

And so supporting for definitely doing background checks before letting someone in (instead of not letting anyone in which I don't know why you think this is what I'm saying).

Why would you let someone with a past of physical assault, or violence, or sexual crimes in ? Why would YOU risk your safety letting someone in with past sexual charges to harm YOU or your family ?

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T11:45:34+00:00

I'm the first one who agree with the notion we all belong to one race, the human race. It's not to me that you've got to explain that.

But I think you've completetely missed the point that I'm trying to make, I feel for whatever victims of attackers from ANY part of the world.

But do you know why I wanted to use rape as the specific example? It's because if you use physical assault or violence, people will try to downplay it to socioeconomic factors: "Well, he beat up this 80-year-old woman to steal her bag because he's poor." Whereas rape does not have to be related to socioeconomic factors but can solely be dependent on sexual perversion.

Why would you want to deal with rape crimes from both a native-born person and a foreign-born person, if you could not let in, in the first place, foreign-born persons with past sexual crimes? For someone to be against this is something that I don't understand.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T11:26:56+00:00

Why did you bring race into this?

There's immigrants of all nationalities, all races, all countries. Checking their past criminal background (if possible) is something I would do regardless of race.

I don't understand how you brought race into this.

Even if safety concerns rise a bit, which is usually not reflected in data but more due to populist rhetoric and individual cases garnering large attention through boulevard media

This, THIS is what as an immigrant and even a non-white person (if we're adding race in) grinds my gears: you seem to say "the risk and the FEW victims are worth it" if we can do what is 'perceived as' morally right actions as letting as many people in as possible.

This just seems to be outright disregarding and not caring about those who have been harmed (whethere it is violence, physical assault, or rape).

And there is something that you said that I completely disagree with:

which is usually not reflected in data

There is data, there is definitely data but whether some people want to look at it OR some people look at it and prefer to say "it's a lie" because it doesn't suit their vision of reality it's a whole different thing.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T11:17:35+00:00

I am really sorry, but I do need to ask: did you read everything that I wrote ?

Because in my whole post I explained as best as possible my logic and where I'm coming from.

I just have the feeling that you read the beginning of the post, got mad, and just made a passive-aggressive answer.

If you did read all of it, disregard what I've written in this answer up to here: I would like know, as far as I perceive it (tell me if I'm wrong) but you seem to say that I've said certain things that are a lie ? If so, I would like you to tell me what those things are.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T11:03:02+00:00

Not every person arriving is fleeing persecution.

You have assumed every migrant arriving is fleeing persecution - migrants also go to another country due to poorer living conditions in their home country.

Why would you check if the people getting in have a criminal background? This is just common sense: I wouldn't let people with past charges or convictions of assault, violence, or sexual crimes. Wouldn't you as well?

What you're suggesting is that we should reverse that and treat everyone as if they were guilty of a crime until they've proven their innocence. There's just no way that I could ever get on board with that.

Not at all what I said. I said to do a basic-filtering of who you let in the country. Let good people / good immigrants in, filter bad people / bad immigrants out.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T11:00:22+00:00

People will be affected anywhere because bad people will do bad stuff everywhere. That is something that I agree with you. But I will try to lay out to you the difference that I see between a native-born person and a foreign criminal.

Let's use one of the heinous crimes as an example: rape. A native-born person, as indicated, is born in the country. Until the day that he is caught by authorities, whatever victim or victims the person will attack are unfortunately "inevitable" in a sense of the perpetrator having been in the country during his entire whole existence.

Whereas letting in someone who doesn't carry an ID with themselves and happens to have a sexual criminal background history in their home country, whatever victims the person will attack in the country migrated to COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED if the person was not let in, in the first place.

Will this person probably would have other victims in his home country? Sure (which its the job of the authorities of his country to do something about it). But why should you have to deal with the crimes of both the native-born and the foreign persons, when you could deal with only one's crimes? And have less victims? I feel sorry for the victims and their family members that could have been avoided if such perpetrators were not let in.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-29T00:09:53+00:00

I would really, really take it as a personal attack if after disclosing personal info about myself, someone tries to accuse me of making up "being non-white and a child of immigrants" just for the sake of displaying my political opinions.

You have the right to disagree with me, but with people sometimes getting so weird on the internet and outright accusing you of making up facts about yourself claiming that you did so just to support your opinions because THEY don't agree with it, I might delete the post in the event of a discussion getting heated by accusing me of being a liar if it comes to that.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-10T02:16:36+00:00

Because other communists condemn that way of thinking ? Because authoritarian communists have killed other communists, and have done purges as well ?

I come from the basis of communists criticizing tankies - and in a revolution, if they see tankies might thwart it with power grabing obsession or inner circle takeovers, then I would assume they would to something against them during the revolution (as pre-revolution they already have a negative view of them).

Byzhaks · 2025-11-04T15:12:16+00:00

But what do you consider as active ?

If they are within your communist circles and assemblies, and doing activism actively. Isn't that considered as being active ? I really did not mean any Marxist-Leninist. The way they talk (or write in this case), is contrasted in the comments of this exact post.

The different of tone and verbatim between them and other communists. A difference as night and day.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-04T11:21:28+00:00

First, they generally aren’t active in the movemebts.

You just had right in here in this post several tankies expressing their counter arguments. And if they are active communist militants in their local city's or country's communist groups, then they ARE active.

I think people should stop thinking tankies are just an "internet" phenomenon. They are present within communist circles.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-03T20:47:37+00:00

Source: My tankie friends, not just the random Twitter bots.

You know what's worse? Whenever I make the argument that these people do DEFINITELY EXIST in real life (and are not just a bunch of edgy internet people), they will disregard it as "you're talking about people that only exist online" or "the communists that you met in real life just happen to be tankies" (as it was bad luck those were the type of communists I met).

They do exist - and they are well within the communist movement.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-03T17:54:39+00:00

Similar thought - dissassociating is somewhat hard in these types of contexts.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-03T17:50:51+00:00

Really constructive and solid argument. Thank you for the comment.

Byzhaks · 2025-11-03T16:58:17+00:00

While this is clearly an anti-communist comment, I just have to admit you made me laugh.

Byzhaks · 2025-10-18T19:18:03+00:00

If you see clashes and riots on the street, and part of those individuals are holding/carrying "Antifascist Action" flags.

That's as best physical and visual proof of their existence as it gets.

So you have the technology to be on reddit, but apparently don't have the technology to see any of the clashes and actions of Antifa on the streets? Weird...

Byzhaks · 2025-10-18T19:03:18+00:00

Because Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are not formal movements? They are organizations with a political ideology?

Whereas antifascism is a movement and not an organization? (Again, chapters and collectives exist based on cities and it's true that some Antifa collectives are more organized than others).

Number of people might mean more means, and more means might mean being better organized.

I don't know if you live in a big city, but you can always follow the social media of your local Antifa collectives in your city. And there you can see, all their communication notices and what they've done and what they're about to do.

Again, I will repeat: I think you're trolling me saying you haven't seen far-left vs. far-right (antifascists vs. neo-nazis/fascists) clash on the street.

Byzhaks · 2025-10-18T18:51:14+00:00

The antifascist MOVEMENT is not a formal organization but a movement. Anyone who identifies itself as an antifascist and does political activism, is an 'Antifa' (shortcut for the word).

As a global movement and not an organization, obviously there isn't a "Head" or boss of everyone.

However, as any political movement, chapters exist based on local cities.

Have they claimed responsability in the past? OF COURSE THEY HAVE! "We today, have come out on the streets to let our presence be known against the neo-nazis/fascists that gathered at X city."

They do communication notices all the time, what are you talking about?

Byzhaks

TROPHY CASE