Commenter Tunglet writes:

The argument that has made Norway semi-close the border is that for the same money it costs to integrate one immigrant in Norway, you could help hundreds in the home country.

This means that those who now say they want Norway to accept more non-white immigrants get thrown in their face that they don’t really want to help non-whites, as that would be to use the money where they help the most people. Instead, they are being motivated by something far less noble, like wanting Norway to lose it’s Norwegian majority.

Sweden has taken billions out of the foreign aid budget, in order to have money for integrating all the immigrants they now need to support in Sweden, a pretty immoral thing to do, if you mean we have responsibility to help the weakest in the world, instead of helping those with enough money to be smuggled into Sweden.

The Israelis, for example, have made a deal with Paul Kagame, the Davos-lauded dictator of Rwanda, to take a lot of the Sudanese refugees who snuck in before Israel finished its razorwire border fences off their hands for modest considerations. The cash costs of avoiding demographic drowning by steps like this are pretty minimal compared to the cost of letting hundreds of millions of Africans turn Israel and Europe into banlieues of Africa.