Blackpill Why Occidental Feminists support lenient immigration while Oriental Feminists push for strict immigration rules

[Zhou Chang-Xing]

While I was in the Philippines I kept getting a lot of Filipino news, here is a good example:

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/i...h-deport-foreign-exes-immigration-violations/

Filipinos can push to deport foreign exes based on immigration violations
APR 16, 2024 11:14 AM PHT

If you're from the West, such a headline would seem shocking, the idea that anyone would dare want to deport any foreigners isn't just considered file here, it's considered unthinkable.

Now, in the West, Feminists are some of the loudest advocates for lenient immigration laws despite most immigrants being the opposite of the men they desire. So why do it? Well, in the West, it's mostly men who import foreign brides, and if a Turk or Moroccan man immigrates to the West he usually naturalises first before he looks for a wife. If strict immigration laws would exist this would give men bargaining power over their wives, threatening to deport them unless they comply.

However, as Feminists hate the idea of ANY man having ANY power over ANY toilet, they don't want such situations to ever occur.

Conversely, in the East most immigrants tend to be White men looking for pussy. In the West we have asylum seekers, in the East they have pussylum seekers, or assylum seekers.

Because here the toilets hold ultimate power, Feminists prefer there to be strict immigration laws that wives can abuse to coercively make their husbands bend to their will.

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Conversely, in the East most immigrants tend to be White men looking for pussy. In the West we have asylum seekers, in the East they have pussylum seekers, or assylum seekers.

Because here the toilets hold ultimate power, Feminists prefer there to be strict immigration laws that wives can abuse to coercively make their husbands bend to their will.

Based analysis and obviously true. @DarkStar @GeckoBus @reveries @sultryloser @Lv99_BixNood @pyromancer1234

Everything, absolutely everything is a "who whom" issue to people. As long as their group, or whatever group they prefer, is the one that profits from it and gains power thanks to it, they will happily support it no matter how many other people's rights get trampled in the process.

 

[GeckoBus]

While I was in the Philippines I kept getting a lot of Filipino news, here is a good example:

View attachment 1285269

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/i...h-deport-foreign-exes-immigration-violations/

Filipinos can push to deport foreign exes based on immigration violations
APR 16, 2024 11:14 AM PHT

If you're from the West, such a headline would seem shocking, the idea that anyone would dare want to deport any foreigners isn't just considered file here, it's considered unthinkable.

Now, in the West, Feminists are some of the loudest advocates for lenient immigration laws despite most immigrants being the opposite of the men they desire. So why do it? Well, in the West, it's mostly men who import foreign brides, and if a Turk or Moroccan man immigrates to the West he usually naturalises first before he looks for a wife. If strict immigration laws would exist this would give men bargaining power over their wives, threatening to deport them unless they comply.

However, as Feminists hate the idea of ANY man having ANY power over ANY toilet, they don't want such situations to ever occur.

Conversely, in the East most immigrants tend to be White men looking for pussy. In the West we have asylum seekers, in the East they have pussylum seekers, or assylum seekers.

Because here the toilets hold ultimate power, Feminists prefer there to be strict immigration laws that wives can abuse to coercively make their husbands bend to their will.

didnt think about that before, how foids are pro-migration cuz they are trying to protect the foids coming in. Kinda laughable tbh, now that you say it, to think that the "refugees welcome" foids actually care about male migrants lmfao. That makes no sense in the light of the evidence (foid in-group bias etc). They are basically protecting their in-group from harm.
Also interesting example of how news give distorted image through selective reporting. Without you, I would have never heard of this.
Good thread!