You want them locked up or deported...

I met a charming, hard-working Ethiopian immigrant lady on Easter, and our mutual bond turned out to be through the shared Easter traditions of the Ethiopian and Russian orthodox churches. She is but one reminder to me of why your statement is utterly misguided and offensive.

Anecdotal evidence. This one person does not change the fact that when a society becomes ethnically and racially mixed, there is less social trust due to fighting over representation and self-segregation.
You pretty much used the "I have a black friend" argument.
 
There is only the human race. Why are you fearful about those not of your same color/ethnicity?

Call humans a race or a species, it's semantics. The point is different populations have different genetics and culture.

It's not that I'm fearful, it's that I accept societies function better with less racial and ethnic diversity. Multiracialism and multiculturalism lower social trust. Whether that should be or shouldn't be is besides the point, it's what is.
 
Anecdotal evidence. This one person does not change the fact that when a society becomes ethnically and racially mixed, there is less social trust due to fighting over representation and self-segregation.
You pretty much used the "I have a black friend" argument.

I do not accept your premise.

First, some of history's worst violence, civil wars, and worst atrocities occurred in relatively homogenous nations - the civil wars, internal conflicts, and revolutions in China, European Russia...even Japan has had way more than its fair share of internal violence and atrocities. The French Revolution was notorious for violence and inhumanity.

Antiquity's most catastrophic war were the Peloponnesian wars- waged entirely among Greeks.

I would say that a careful study of the historical record would actually show that the most death and most apocalyptic civil wars and revolutions occurred in relatively homogenous China and European Russia.

Second, assimilation does happen by the second generation and most defintely by the third. I have seen it up close and first hand.

But the bottom line is, if you do not want to live around Jews, hispanics, Muslims, or blacks, you can always live in northern Idaho, Wyoming, or any of the places this great nation has which are overwhelmingly white. A lot of other people are perfectly fine living in San Francisco, New York, Atlanta, and other ethnically diverse areas.
 
First, some of history's worst violence, civil wars, and worst atrocities occurred in relatively homogenous nations - the civil wars, internal conflicts, and revolutions in China, European Russia...even Japan has had way more than its fair share of internal violence and atrocities. The French Revolution was notorious for violence and inhumanity.

Well yeah, because for most of history, people only had contact with people of the same race. And of course there are other things that cause tension. Politics, religion, ethnicity, culture, and so on.
None of this changes the fact that homogeneous societies generally function better than diverse ones. And if people fight over religion and ethnicity, why add race to the equation? That only makes things worse.

Antiquities most catastrophic war were the peloponnesian wars- waged entirely among Greeks.

And look what happened when the Greeks were threatened by the Persians. They came together as Greeks to defend their land from a culture that was even more distant than their own. The same thing would later happen with all the German tribes uniting against the Romans.

I would say that a careful study of the historical record would actually show that the most death and most apocalyptic civil wars and revolutions occurred in relatively homogenous China and European Russia.

Yes, and in America, most murders are between people of the same race because those are the people they are more likely to be around. Again, for most of history, people only had contact with people of the same race.

Second, assimilation does happen by the second generation and most defintely by the third. I have seen it up close and first hand.

Blacks, American Indians, Jews, and Mestizos have all been in America longer than most white ethnicities. And yet those four non-white groups are still far less assimilated than literally every white ethnicity.
Why are Blacks constantly fighting for representation in government and media? Aren't they just American? Why should they care how many Blacks are at the Oscars if we're all just Americans? The truth is, Blacks don't consider themselves American and probably never will.

But the bottom line is, if you do not want to live around Jews, hispanics, Muslims, or blacks, you can always live in northern Idaho, or any of the places this great nation has which are overwhelmingly white. A lot of other people are perfectly fine living in San Francisco, New York, Atlanta, and other enthnically diverse areas.

And what happens when non-white people start filling up the North-West? Will we be able to still have our white neighborhoods? Or will the government force us to sell houses and rent apartments to non-white people? White people do not have freedom of association anymore because we made the mistake of allowing the non-white minority to get too big.

I believe in freedom of association. You want to live in a multiracial neighborhood, you want to hire people of every race in your business, then you should have that right. But white people should also have the right to refuse to do these things.
 
I am cheering, I do not want these people deported.... I want them welcomed!

The question then is a simple one; "Why do you want CRIMINALS released into our society.....why do you refuse to support the rule of law?" Or are you saying that up to 80% of these aliens at our border are not authorized to seek asylum under the current guidelines as our court system has ruled? https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/07/05/fact-check-are-80-court-cases-not-approved/

If someone came to your front door, looked down and saw a Welcome Mat....does that give them the human right to open your door and make themselves at home while demanding food, shelter and a substance allowance from your family because of your good nature?

As I said, there is a "disconnect in the left leaning brain between cognitive logical and reasonable thought and EMOTION." Perhaps RUSH was right, liberalism is a mental disease. :dunno:

Another simple question? Just how many of these poor disenfranchised asylum seeking PEOPLE do you have living with you....if none.....why not? You do want them welcomed...no?

I'd say that its the exact same number of EXTRA dollars of your earned income you donate to the IRS in order to redistribute to the poor folk in our nation. -0-
 
Christiecrite has denied that open borders are the goal of the DEMOCRATS, Earl.

Should we believe her?

Here's something for you and your new best friend to educate yourself with. :D

"When trump claimed in his State of the Union Address that “wealthy politicians and donors push for open borders, while living their lives behind walls and gates and guards,” it was his latest of countless efforts to accuse Democrats and liberals of being “soft” on migration. Like the entirety of Trump’s speech, this claim was misleading and outright false on many levels.

The notion, for example, that “liberal elites” support open borders while a billionaire president defends the working class from the migrant “threat” is outrageous. Among the many problems with the argument is that it ignores — or rather, intentionally obscures — the fact that the U.S. working class itself is composed in significant part by millions of migrants. Far from immigrants being outsiders who endanger the working class of this country, they are part of its fabric — far more so than Donald Trump, who was born wealthy, ever was.

But trump’s main argument, that there are those on the liberal end of Washington’s political class who advocate for free migration across borders, is simply a lie.

As the New York Times pointed out last year, the Democratic Party has repeatedly and expressly condemned open borders in word and supported border militarization in deed. In fact, Stacey Abrams distanced herself from the position immediately after Trump’s speech in the Democratic response, asserting that “compassionate treatment is not the same as open borders” and promising that “Democrats stand ready to effectively secure our ports and borders.”

A genuine call for open borders is virtually absent from the debate between the White House and Capitol Hill, where the question has been not whether to militarize the border, but merely how many billions of dollars should be devoted to “border security,” or what specific physical infrastructure it should buy."

http://inthesetimes.com/article/217...rump-freedom-of-movement-democrats-free-trade
 
So the failing NYT says. Talk is cheap. DEMOCRAT deeds say otherwise. :D

fullsizeoutput_4908-640x480.jpeg

Nice boobs on the one on the right!
 
Back
Top