There’s only person who can have his child raping ignored and even respected and he’s also middle eastern (prophet muhammed)
We’re not discussing illegal immigration, this is about legal immigration.
Did you ever read about how Thomas Jefferson thought blacks smelled bad?
[quote]
They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. [/quote]
or how he thought they were racially inferior?
[quote]
in memory they are equal to the whites;
in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid;
and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. [/quote]
Yours is an awesome perspective, and thank you - to your quoted point: yes, precisely, and we don’t want Raj types coming in with those distinctly un-American views and poisoning that well. Those things don’t matter, and that is our American way, being a nation of ideas, not of blood and soil, and that progress was hard-earned, not simply gifted, to this great country.
5 Likes
Let’s have the links where you’re pulling these quotes.
1 Like
I ask you to review the immigration policies of the United States pre-1965. They were deeply focused on demographics
Start with 1790
Why? You probably aren’t even going to bother reading them anyways. I bet you didn’t bother to read any of the sources I posted the first time here:
The founding fathers were around in 1790 mostly right? if they wanted to open the borders to so many people of so many different demographics, why didn’t they do it when they had the chance then?
Why does the policy specifically say:
[quote]
That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…" [/quote]
Because based on your atrocious history, I get the sneaking feeling you traffic around an racist/racialist fever swamp websites, and if so, let’s see where you’re getting your material. If not, let’s see that, too.
Anyways, check out Trump roasting Hillary. Just Amazing.
[quote=“therajraj, post:3961, topic:218984, full:true”]
The founding fathers were around in 1790 mostly right? if they wanted to open the borders to so many people of so many different demographics, why didn’t they do it when they had the chance then?
Why does the policy specifically say:
So, whites - meaning pretty much anyone of European descent, including many distinctive non-British folk, including French, Spanish, Dutch, Jewish (you know, the ones that run the Illuminati you read about on your websites), Swedish, and Irish and Scots-Irish (both of whom are, er, most assuredly not-British, and recoil at any comparison).
Of course, in reality, plenty of free blacks (and other ethnicities) lived in the US and were recognized as citizens, and the attitudes among some that the nominal restriction on blacks was merely a temporary restriction until the slave trade was ended, pursuant to the compromise struck in the Constitution.
Absolutely outstanding post.
To add my 2 cents to this morass, I am a Northern Irish Catholic and can wholeheartedly say that Ioppar’s assessment of ethno-religious fault lines is as accurate as it is utterly disheartening. It has made politics in my home utterly defunct.
I admire the British and American systems much more than my own bigoted mess. But I would not go so far as to accept the “rising tide lifting all boats” argument vis a vis immigration. Luton, where I visited frequently, has turned into a disaster area, so I cannot disregard demographics has had a qualitative effect on the area. The concern I have is that the full blown ethno-centrism on display as a result of this issue will end in disaster.
Europe’s disregard of demographics has been an utter failure, but I can guarantee the solution will be twice as bad. So I may be hedging between the 2 arguments this (supposedly presidential) thread has on display.
TL;DR. Mass, uncontrolled, immigration sucks, state ethno-centrism sucks worse.
4 Likes
That’s the changing nature of the US during the 19th century - the US of A was an unique concept rooted in Enlightenment principles but still a product of its time. Or did you expect the Founding Fathers to have a stance on LGBT rights for example?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Ben Franklin consider himself “English”? I’ve also read that during the Civil War several Southern generals, especially in the Army of Northern Virginia appealed to their soldiers to make “their English race proud”…
This identification was obsolete by the end of the 19th century due a massive influx of immigrants, not to mention in the 21st century…
You’re conflating several issues - principles on which the USA was formed with 19th century racism, for example. Didn’t Abraham freakin’ Lincoln in his debates with Douglas sidestep the issue of racial equality? Things change, politics, norms and moral change as well…
I think you may have missed my original argument.
me: Limit immigration for XYZ reasons
Anti-Trumpers: limiting immigration is against America’s founding principles!
Me: The Founding Fathers specifically laid out that America was supposed to be a country of white people with a strong preference for those from the British Isles. Your stance (mass immigration from everywhere) is further from the founding principles than mine.
That was just plain ugly.
Here is where @therajraj is likely pulling his drek from:
http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race
Current immigration differs greatly from early immigration into the U.S. Immigrants are now subsidized(not that no native-born citizens are) with money taken from taxpayers. Immigrants are also guaranteed a right to the labor of others(again, something that has also been wrongly guaranteed to citizens). Immigration is not the disease; it’s merely a symptom. Who cares? Stop it completely, completely open the borders, or choose any point in the middle-the disease will survive.
So… The irony with this just made my day.
Absolutely. They bring invaluable cultural perspectives. Westerners are prone (even when using structured analytical techniques to specifically counteract this) to view and analyze international phenomenon through the lens of their own state’s political and strategic culture.
1 Like
Nope, pretty much what I and many others agree on. Very well said to both of you.