Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 480 of 619

Thread: Some Thoughts on Immigration

  1. #451
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    So because if your past we need to risk our Liberty and future...Why?

    At some point you need to close the gates and say "no more" well that time is here and that is what we are doing, and all the teary eyed stories, or revisionism, or Romanticism, name calling or cliches is not going to stop from happening.
    The majority of Americans don't even support that.

    Now, we will also deport either by force or attrition the illegals here as well as use the Sailer strategy.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-sa...o-save-america

    That and a booming economy, Whites will bounce back.
    You know that most Hispanics are here legally and they still have more children than white people. So You would just slow down the trend. Blacks are also growing at a faster rate than whites. Sometime in the near future Mississippi will be majority-black. And very few black people are illegal immigrants.
    Stop believing stupid things



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #452
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    The majority of Americans don't even support that.
    Oh, but they do!

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/28/pe...d-immigration/

    http://samepagenation.com/2015/09/do...s-immigration/

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/181313/di...on-levels.aspx




    You know that most Hispanics are here legally and they still have more children than white people. So You would just slow down the trend. Blacks are also growing at a faster rate than whites. Sometime in the near future Mississippi will be majority-black. And very few black people are illegal immigrants.
    Not true.

    http://fusion.net/story/53820/what-t...e-u-s-economy/

    Now, think of what would happen if birth right ciztenship was ended, Can you think of how great the drop would be? No more life time welfare, no more "free" healthcare, education ,etc. Not a damn thing. Along with E-verify, no renting without E verify alone will force them to leave. It will be epic.

    With abortion rates, if it were not for immigration from Afrcia their numbers would be going down even faster then the are now.

    Yes, they are not. Why is that? Maybe because Africa is not within walking distance.

  4. #453
    I've seen polls that say otherwise, like on this thread or the other one.

    Not true.

    http://fusion.net/story/53820/what-t...e-u-s-economy/

    Now, think of what would happen if birth right ciztenship was ended, Can you think of how great the drop would be? No more life time welfare, no more "free" healthcare, education ,etc. Not a damn thing. Along with E-verify, no renting without E verify alone will force them to leave. It will be epic.
    White people are not having very many kids. and even if the Hispanic birth rate is plummeting it's still higher than that of whites. Not to mention that a lot of whites have children with non-whites.

    With abortion rates, if it were not for immigration from Afrcia their numbers would be going down even faster then the are now.

    Yes, they are not. Why is that? Maybe because Africa is not within walking distance.
    The numbers of African Americans are not going down.
    Stop believing stupid things

  5. #454
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    I've seen polls that say otherwise, like on this thread or the other one.
    Show people a blue car and more then a few will claim it red.

    Just google terms and polls and you will see what the Media does not want to talk about immigration reduction, its because the large majority of Americans support it.


    White people are not having very many kids. and even if the Hispanic birth rate is plummeting it's still higher than that of whites. Not to mention that a lot of whites have children with non-whites.
    Only thanks to mass immigration. And we whites are not having as many kids as them because 1. We do not qualify for all the "free" stuff they do, 2. We want to live a decedent life, not just survive in poverty and 3. We do not see the value in mindlessly breeding.

    Secure the borders, deport the illegals, end birthright ciztenship, along with economical growth and whites will bounce back.

    The numbers of African Americans are not going down.
    [/QUOTE]

    http://www.eurweb.com/2011/01/eur-sp...nority-status/

  6. #455
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    Show people a blue car and more then a few will claim it red.

    Just google terms and polls and you will see what the Media does not want to talk about immigration reduction, its because the large majority of Americans support it.




    Only thanks to mass immigration. And we whites are not having as many kids as them because 1. We do not qualify for all the "free" stuff they do, 2. We want to live a decedent life, not just survive in poverty and 3. We do not see the value in mindlessly breeding.

    Secure the borders, deport the illegals, end birthright ciztenship, along with economical growth and whites will bounce back.

    http://www.eurweb.com/2011/01/eur-sp...nority-status/[/QUOTE]


    Even if you somehow manage to reduce immigration whites still aren't having very many children and many of them are having children with people of different races. The percentage of mixed race people will continue to grow.
    Stop believing stupid things

  7. #456
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Here's the first mention of "shooting" that I could find in the dialog between Spartan-boy and myself, and I haven't found anywhere he disavowed the proposal in horror, would you be so kind as to point that out for me?
    Well, maybe he didn't, maybe I was wrong about that, or maybe it's at least an exaggeration. I have not truly kept up on you guys' conversations in various threads, only occasionally skimmed. It is not my job to defend American Spartan, though (or anyone else).



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #457
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Well, maybe he didn't, maybe I was wrong about that, or maybe it's at least an exaggeration. I have not truly kept up on you guys' conversations in various threads, only occasionally skimmed. It is not my job to defend American Spartan, though (or anyone else).
    That post was in this thread HH, the thread where you accused me of wanting to shoot people and then decreed that Spartan-boy was virtuous to the point he exhibited "horror" at shooting people...When in fact 'twas him that brought up the subject with his bold suggestion that I take the first shot...

    If you read this thread you'll find me blaming government for immigration problems and strongly advocating to not grant them any more power or authority in the matter.

  10. #458
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No, the following sums it up: Your argument against non-European immigration rests on the assumption that these immigrants will be unable to assimilate, which in turn rests on the assumption that they're more genetically predisposed toward leftism than Europeans - yet the factual support for this latter claim is weak to non-existent, as I've been pointing out.
    None of this is true.

    Look, I told you in a very simple, easy-to-understand way that you were wrong about my views:
    I do not have a "model" in which "the essence of the problem is supposed to be genetic". You have invented a view for me which I have never come even close to stating anything like, and, lo and behold, that view is very easy for you to knock down as incorrect. There is a name for this fallacy, when it is a fallacy. But you are smart enough that I think you did it intentionally.
    Your come-back is to now insist "do too! do too! do too!":
    You do. On previous occasions when we've discussed immigration, I've argued that immigrants having leftist political tendencies is not a problem so long as they're not enfranchised until after they've assimilated, to which your retort has always been that they can't assimilate, for genetic reasons. Do I need to dig up some old threads and quote you to yourself, or do you remember this?
    So sure, tiger, go ahead and dig up all those posts. I have a habit of assuming good faith, so let me guess that you probably have confused/merged me together with other posters. Or perhaps just not understood my posts. In any case, the exercise of searching and digging will probably do more to educate you on what I have written than me taking time attempting to reiterate myself yet again.

    If you're retreating to the more modest position that immigrants are more leftist than natives upon their arrival, but they (or at least their children) can eventually assimilate (i.e. that the problem is not genetic), then you need not be opposed to immigration at all; you need only be opposed to giving them the franchise right off the boat, as am I.
    So everyone will assimilate and become interchangeable. One person is as good as another. Sounds awfully egalitarian to me.

    In your "digging," I would recommend you dig back to read my very first post in this thread. That is my position. Everyone is not the same. Everyone does not just melt together and assimilate and become indistinguishable from each other merely because they live within the same X national borders for X period of time. Rather, people have different characteristics and different quality levels. Because these differences are real, and because these differences are important, taking these differences into account is relevant.

    You're attempting to morph this rock-solid, unimpeachable view into some dried-grass bovine feed that's much more easily attacked. Understandable. But not intellectually honest. It doesn't matter if the differences are genetic or environmental. It doesn't matter if differences are caused by astrological signs, or sunspots, or the curse of Cain, or evolutionary selection, or anything you can think of. None of that matters to my point, and none of that matters to immigration policy. What matters is that the differences exist and are real and measurable, and that they are intractable. That is, they persist. They don't seem to change. They are "sticky." Even over long periods of time, even in the face of people trying to change them, people remain the way they are. People just are the way they are. So whatever is causing people to be different, the fact is that they are different, and so it would only seem rational to be willing to accept that fact and take it into account.

    Anyway, I don't understand why you feel compelled to inform me of what my own views are, and correct me on it, as if you are the expert on my views, and I am the clueless, errant dunce. I don't understand why you seem to have decided it's so important for you to smear me. I don't understand, frankly, why you have become rabidly obsessed with the issue of immigration, and with smearing or destroying all posters who may hold any slightly non-open-borders viewpoint. But I definitely don't understand why you would feel the need to smear and defame me, personally. I don't understand how that fits into your strategy and furthers your goals. Maybe you should just stick to promoting Rand, and not smearing those who should be your allies. Eh?

  11. #459
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    That post was in this thread HH, the thread where you accused me of wanting to shoot people and then decreed that Spartan-boy was virtuous to the point he exhibited "horror" at shooting people...When in fact 'twas him that brought up the subject with his bold suggestion that I take the first shot...

    If you read this thread you'll find me blaming government for immigration problems and strongly advocating to not grant them any more power or authority in the matter.
    Gotcha, and thank you for setting me straight. I really was not accusing you of wanting to shoot people, as I feel I know you well enough to know perfectly well that you do not want to go around shooting anyone; I just wanted you to clarify and explain your views. I didn't understand what you were saying, and wanted to understand. And now I do, better than I did before.

  12. #460
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No, the following sums it up: Your argument against non-European immigration rests on the assumption that these immigrants will be unable to assimilate, which in turn rests on the assumption that they're more genetically predisposed toward leftism than Europeans - yet the factual support for this latter claim is weak to non-existent, as I've been pointing out.
    None of this is true.
    And yet, in this very post (I didn't need to do much digging..), you say:

    ...people have different characteristics and different quality levels...

    ...these differences are important...

    ...the differences exist and are real and measurable, and that they are intractable. That is, they persist. They don't seem to change...
    If that doesn't mean that the differences are genetic, I don't know what it could possibly mean.

    In any event, here's the bottom line:

    1. If (as seems plain) you're saying that political behavior is genetic, and that whites are genetically predisposed toward better political behavior than non-whites, then that argument is weak for the reasons explained in my last several posts (in short, the empirical evidence does not provide the neat correlation between race and political outcomes that this view requires).

    2. If (as you now claim) you're saying that political behavior is not genetic, that immigrant political behavior is entirely a product of the environment in their home countries (and, similarly, Americans' political behavior is a product of the environment in the US), then there is no reason to suppose that the immigrants will not - over time - adopt the political behavior of Americans*, in which case there is no reason to restrict immigration (one could simply delay enfranchisement).

    Either way, there's no here case for restricting immigration.

    *which is abominable, of course
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-30-2015 at 02:56 PM.

  13. #461
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    You need a remedial class on percentages.


    Last edited by TheCount; 11-30-2015 at 05:17 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  14. #462
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post

    Even if you somehow manage to reduce immigration whites still aren't having very many children and many of them are having children with people of different races. The percentage of mixed race people will continue to grow.[/QUOTE]

    Grows at a trickle, and we are going to reduce it. We just need to get to replacement and all will be well.

  15. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    None of this is true.

    Look, I told you in a very simple, easy-to-understand way that you were wrong about my views:


    Your come-back is to now insist "do too! do too! do too!":
    So sure, tiger, go ahead and dig up all those posts. I have a habit of assuming good faith, so let me guess that you probably have confused/merged me together with other posters. Or perhaps just not understood my posts. In any case, the exercise of searching and digging will probably do more to educate you on what I have written than me taking time attempting to reiterate myself yet again.

    So everyone will assimilate and become interchangeable. One person is as good as another. Sounds awfully egalitarian to me.

    In your "digging," I would recommend you dig back to read my very first post in this thread. That is my position. Everyone is not the same. Everyone does not just melt together and assimilate and become indistinguishable from each other merely because they live within the same X national borders for X period of time. Rather, people have different characteristics and different quality levels. Because these differences are real, and because these differences are important, taking these differences into account is relevant.

    You're attempting to morph this rock-solid, unimpeachable view into some dried-grass bovine feed that's much more easily attacked. Understandable. But not intellectually honest. It doesn't matter if the differences are genetic or environmental. It doesn't matter if differences are caused by astrological signs, or sunspots, or the curse of Cain, or evolutionary selection, or anything you can think of. None of that matters to my point, and none of that matters to immigration policy. What matters is that the differences exist and are real and measurable, and that they are intractable. That is, they persist. They don't seem to change. They are "sticky." Even over long periods of time, even in the face of people trying to change them, people remain the way they are. People just are the way they are. So whatever is causing people to be different, the fact is that they are different, and so it would only seem rational to be willing to accept that fact and take it into account.

    Anyway, I don't understand why you feel compelled to inform me of what my own views are, and correct me on it, as if you are the expert on my views, and I am the clueless, errant dunce. I don't understand why you seem to have decided it's so important for you to smear me. I don't understand, frankly, why you have become rabidly obsessed with the issue of immigration, and with smearing or destroying all posters who may hold any slightly non-open-borders viewpoint. But I definitely don't understand why you would feel the need to smear and defame me, personally. I don't understand how that fits into your strategy and furthers your goals. Maybe you should just stick to promoting Rand, and not smearing those who should be your allies. Eh?
    Remember "Diversity" + Proximity= Conflict

  16. #464
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post

    ....that immigrants can in fact assimilate, and therefore there's no reason to deny them entry, since we can instead simply delay giving them the franchise?
    No, we can as a large majority of them do not assimilate. So that is why we will deny them franchise and entry.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #465
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    And yet, in this very post (I didn't need to do much digging..), you say:



    If that doesn't mean that the differences are genetic, I don't know what it could possibly mean.

    In any event, here's the bottom line:

    1. If (as seems plain) you're saying that political behavior is genetic, and that whites are genetically predisposed toward better political behavior than non-whites, then that argument is weak for the reasons explained in my last several posts (in short, the empirical evidence does not provide the neat correlation between race and political outcomes that this view requires).

    2. If (as you now claim) you're saying that political behavior is not genetic, that immigrant political behavior is entirely a product of the environment in their home countries (and, similarly, Americans' political behavior is a product of the environment in the US), then there is no reason to suppose that the immigrants will not - over time - adopt the political behavior of Americans*, in which case there is no reason to restrict immigration (one could simply delay enfranchisement).

    Either way, there's no here case for restricting immigration.

    *which is abominable, of course
    Political views are effected by genes and culture.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=polt...+views+genetic

    To you, their will never be any reason to limit immigration, not even self preservation. Well hate to break it to you but their are many reasons to and we will do. Do not like it? Pound sand.

  19. #466
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    You need a remedial class on percentages.


    How much is that of native growth and how much is caused by immigration?

  20. #467
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    we are going to reduce it. We just need
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    we can So that is why we will
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    and we will do.

  21. #468
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    How much is that of native growth and how much is caused by immigration?
    Very little is caused by immigration. Immigration from Africa has not been in large numbers since 1807.
    Stop believing stupid things

  22. #469
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    Very little is caused by immigration. Immigration from Africa has not been in large numbers since 1807.
    The stats prove you wrong, we have let in a great since 1965, never mind the refugees.

  23. #470
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post

    Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    The majority of Americans don't even support that.
    Oh, but they do!

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/28/pe...d-immigration/

    http://samepagenation.com/2015/09/do...s-immigration/

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/181313/di...on-levels.aspx

    Not true.
    From your Gallop Poll link:

    In a follow-up question that queried Americans who are dissatisfied with the current levels of immigration, 39% of U.S. adults in total -- said they would like to see the level of immigration decrease.
    That is down from 50% as recently as 2008. 39% is not a majority of Americans. In 2006 a majority agreed- but not today. 33% are satisfied with current levels of immigration.

    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2015 at 07:16 PM.

  24. #471
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    then there is no reason to suppose that the immigrants will not - over time - adopt the political behavior of Americans
    Oh no, no reason. No reason at all. Except for the facts.

    Inconvenient little things.

    Anyway, you're still being dishonest about my views, trying to twist them into the least-popular corner you can come up with. Again, I don't really understand why you've decided that smearing me is so important -- so important that honesty goes out the window. Is it really that important, 3.0? Am I really that much of a threat?

    Whether it's genetic, whether it's cultural, who can say? Clearly you are predisposed to believe it's cultural, while I am more disposed to believe it is largely genetic. But regardless, it does not seem to improve over 40 year time frames. That's the important thing. You are not capable nor qualified of arguing the biology of it with me, and it does not matter. Regardless of the reason, immigrants to America do support big, overbearing government massively, massively more than the native population. As do their children. And their grandchildren. And their great-grandchildren.

    That is relevant to people wanting liberty to win. If you want liberty to win electorally, anything standing in the way of liberty winning electorally is a problem. So the question is, do you actually care about that? I do.

    That's just one possible reason that people might want to limit immigration into their communities, though. Just one. As I explain in my first post in this thread, there are many others. There are a virtually unlimited array of reasons, having to do with all the little things that make the person love and treasure the place they live in the first place, most of which will change with unlimited, indiscriminate immigration. And there are, in contrast, almost no reasons that would make someone favor having unlimited immigration into his community.

    Indeed, you can see this proved out right here: the people on RPF most strongly in favor of unlimited immigration are those who place virtually no value on the place they live. They don't love it at all. They hate and spit on American culture; in fact no such thing exists, they say. The West is a bunch of mass-murdering hypocrites, they say. Americans are a bunch of "dumb," "abominable" "idiots" whom they find loathsome and despicable. So, since zero of the unlimited array of reasons mentioned above are relevant to them, the reasons in favor of unlimited indiscriminate waves of immigration win out, even though there are relatively few of them. If ones hates his community, who cares if it gets trashed and turned upside-down?

    Sum up:

    My views may not be perfect, but they are fact-based.
    You're still being dishonest about my views.
    If you want to continue this conversation, shape up and fly straight.

  25. #472
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    The stats prove you wrong, we have let in a great since 1965, never mind the refugees.
    Among Hispanics and Asians, but Africans are a very small percentage of the total number of immigrants. There are probably more Europeans coming in than Africans.
    Stop believing stupid things



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #473
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    Even if you somehow manage to reduce immigration whites still aren't having very many children and many of them are having children with people of different races. The percentage of mixed race people will continue to grow.

    Grows at a trickle, and we are going to reduce it. We just need to get to replacement and all will be well.
    So make more babies. You have until 2044. Possibly longer. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/op...-minority.html

    The Myth of a White Minority

    IN 2012, the Census Bureau announced that nonwhite births exceeded white births for the first time. In 2013, it noted that more whites were dying than were being born. In March, it projected that non-Hispanic whites would be a minority by 2044.

    But the forecast of an imminent white minority, which some take as a given, is wrong. We will seem like a majority-white society for much longer than is believed.

    The predictions make sense only if you accept the outdated, illogical methods used by the census, which define as a “minority” anyone who belongs to “any group other than non-Hispanic White alone.” In the words “group” and “alone” lie a host of confusions.

    A report the Pew Research Center is releasing today on multiracial Americans demonstrates how problematic these definitions have become. Pew estimates that 8.9 percent of Americans now have family backgrounds that involve some combination of white, black, Latino, Asian and Native American.

    “Mixed” unions — intermarriages and long-lasting cohabitations — have become far more common. According to a 2012 Pew report, 15 percent of new marriages cross the major lines of race or Hispanic origin. Some 70 percent of these relationships involve a white partner and a minority spouse. The most common minority partners for whites are Latinos, followed by Asians, though the frequency of white-black marriage also continues to rise.

    But even as the on-the-ground understanding of race and ethnicity becomes more fluid, contingent and overlapping, our public conversation lags.

    Take, for example, the claim that “minority babies are now the majority.” Analyzing data from the 2013 American Community Survey, I found that it identified only about half of infants (children under 1) as non-Hispanic whites — though 60 percent had at least one non-Hispanic white parent. The discrepancy arises because of demographic convention: The census counts as minority anyone of mixed race or ethnicity.

    Among infants with a Hispanic parent, about 30 percent also had a non-Hispanic parent — and for two-thirds of them, that parent was white. The percentages were similar for infants of Asian parentage.

    For much of our racist past, all partly white, partly black individuals were socially and legally defined as black. The “one drop” rule was absurd, of course, yet it has effectively returned, with a vengeance, via statistical categories. There is no justification for viewing as not white all children who are partly white and being raised in a family that includes a white parent and two white grandparents, to say nothing of aunts, uncles and cousins.

    According to the new Pew report, about 60 percent of multiracial Americans in fact do not consider themselves multiracial. But identities are socially constrained: That is, they are in part products of the ways others see us, and not just our free choices. The influence of social environment is especially strong in childhood.
    I found this part particularly interesting-

    Some of the mixed children now classified as minorities surely will think of themselves mainly as whites when they grow up; researchers have already found a significant group of American adults who declare themselves as non-Hispanic whites to the census, but acknowledge having some Mexican ancestry. Others may have mixed or even minority identities, but will be “sociologically white,” integrated into white communities and family networks and seen as essentially no different from anyone else.

    According to the new Pew report, adults from mixed white and Asian backgrounds feel they have more in common with whites than they do with Asians; almost half have friendship circles that are mostly made up of whites; and two-thirds live in mostly white neighborhoods. Two-thirds of the multiracial Americans in the report who have some white ancestry are themselves married to whites.

    We can grasp these emerging social realities by remembering our history of assimilation. At midcentury, religious boundaries were highly salient in white America. Catholics, Jews and Protestants were distinct populations, whose social lives were largely confined within their own group. Yet in only a few decades, the differences faded, and interaction across the boundaries proliferated. It was not that people ceased being Catholic or Jewish. But the public faces of those identities became much more muted and rarely intruded on everyday life. The Jewish intermarriage rate, around 10 percent in 1950, climbed to 58 percent by 2013.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2015 at 07:50 PM.

  28. #474
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Whether it's genetic, whether it's cultural, who can say? Clearly you are predisposed to believe it's cultural, while I am more disposed to believe it is largely genetic. But regardless, it does not seem to improve over 40 year time frames. That's the important thing. You are not capable nor qualified of arguing the biology of it with me, and it does not matter. Regardless of the reason, immigrants to America do support big, overbearing government massively, massively more than the native population. As do their children. And their grandchildren. And their great-grandchildren.


    As I explain in my first post in this thread, there are many others. There are a virtually unlimited array of reasons, having to do with all the little things that make the person love and treasure the place they live in the first place, most of which will change with unlimited, indiscriminate immigration.
    Being a libertarian, I find it unethical to violate people's property rights for purely selfish aesthetic reasons.

    I wouldn't like it if a gaggle of butch lesbians moved into my neighborhood, but I wouldn't be asking the government to deport them at gunpoint either.

    And there are, in contrast, almost no reasons that would make someone favor having unlimited immigration into his community.
    Apart from an abstract opposition to aggression, there's the fact that immigration raises the average real income of Americans.

    Anyway, you're still being dishonest about my views
    I claimed that you think political behavior is significantly genetic - you do, you just said so again in this post.

    Helmuth: "I am more disposed to believe it is largely genetic"

    So..how am I misrepresenting your views?

    Again, I don't really understand why you've decided that smearing me is so important -- so important that honesty goes out the window. Is it really that important, 3.0? Am I really that much of a threat?




    ...I'm not trying to smear you helmuth, I'm merely rebutting an argument you're making.

    You recall that I too believe that there are non-trivial differences between the races?

    So, it's not as if I'm calling you a racist or something.

    We simply part on the effect of those genetic differences: I don't think they extend to political behavior - I see no evidence for it.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-30-2015 at 08:04 PM.

  29. #475
    Arguing that racial genetic differences affect assimilation is both misinformed and unhelpful to the cause of reforming immigration policy. No reputable population geneticist makes this argument, and I can guess that people who regurgitate half-baked internet articles supporting genetic differences have no rigorous training in biology. The only major genetic differences between races relate to skin pigmentation, height and other relatively superficial attributes; disease protection or susceptibility; and athletic ability, such as in East Africans (but even this is disputed). It is parsimonious (and pretty damn obvious) to conclude that differences in immigrant economic success in the United States and other Western nations are chiefly caused by cultural differences (religion, customs, and value systems) and, to some extent, persistent racism (especially in Europe).
    Last edited by statist slayer; 11-30-2015 at 09:11 PM.

  30. #476
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    From your Gallop Poll link:



    That is down from 50% as recently as 2008. 39% is not a majority of Americans. In 2006 a majority agreed- but not today. 33% are satisfied with current levels of immigration.

    Yeah, never mind the other two polls, right? Anything to keep the tide from turning against you.

  31. #477
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So make more babies. You have until 2044. Possibly longer. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/op...-minority.html



    I found this part particularly interesting-
    Do not worry, when we reduce immigration and send the illegals back it will do a great deal for us. Do not worry Juan, we whites will still be control of America as we should be. I do not know why we should not be.

  32. #478
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So you want us to wait 3 generations to win when we could won right now by stopping immigration and not take massive and seemingly pointless risks?


    Being a libertarian, I find it unethical to violate people's property rights for purely selfish aesthetic reasons.

    I wouldn't like it if a gaggle of butch lesbians moved into my neighborhood, but I wouldn't be asking the government to deport them at gunpoint either.
    Well you should have the means of stopping them from moving in via the freedom of association. Like it or not they will force their values on to you and your moral signaling will not stop them.


    Apart from an abstract opposition to aggression, there's the fact that immigration raises the average real income of Americans.
    Bald faced lie. During the low-immigration period from 1948-1973, real median compensation for U.S. workers increased more than 90 percent


    I claimed that you think political behavior is significantly genetic - you do, you just said so again in this post.

    Helmuth: "I am more disposed to believe it is largely genetic"

    So..how am I misrepresenting your views?
    Well it is, are you going to say genetics does not exist?






    ...I'm not trying to smear you helmuth, I'm merely rebutting an argument you're making.

    You recall that I too believe that there are non-trivial differences between the races?

    So, it's not as if I'm calling you a racist or something.

    We simply part on the effect of those genetic differences: I don't think they extend to political behavior - I see no evidence for it.
    Its not trivial, and your calling it that does not make it so. It total extends to political behavior, how can it not be?


    Quote Originally Posted by statist slayer View Post
    Arguing that racial genetic differences affect assimilation is both misinformed and unhelpful to the cause of reforming immigration policy. No reputable population geneticist makes this argument, and I can guess that people who regurgitate half-baked internet articles supporting genetic differences have no rigorous training in biology. The only major genetic differences between races relate to skin pigmentation, height and other relatively superficial attributes; disease protection or susceptibility; and athletic ability, such as in East Africans (but even this is disputed). It is parsimonious (and pretty damn obvious) to conclude that differences in immigrant economic success in the United States and other Western nations are chiefly caused by cultural differences (religion, customs, and value systems) and, to some extent, persistent racism (especially in Europe).
    And if facts were presented? No IQ is also effected by genes. Either way we have every right to keep some groups out and we are going to once again. Time for us to protect our nation, culture, and control over our nation, culture, and future.
    Last edited by AmericanSpartan; 11-30-2015 at 10:37 PM.

  33. #479
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanSpartan View Post
    Do not worry, when we reduce immigration and send the illegals back it will do a great deal for us. Do not worry Juan, we whites will still be control of America as we should be. I do not know why we should not be.
    Whites have been the ones in power. If the country is screwed up, it is their fault.

  34. #480
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Whites have been the ones in power. If the country is screwed up, it is their fault.
    No, we do not have as much power as we did or we should.

    Look at were non whites rule the show..Either with Mexico or Somalia



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts on Nelson Mandela? Thoughts on the movie?
    By Reason in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 08:53 PM
  2. Thoughts on Illegal Immigration & Birthright Citizenship
    By srps2233 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-08-2007, 03:01 PM
  3. Issue: Immigration: ron paul and illegal immigration
    By gaazn in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 01:47 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 05:02 PM
  5. Issue: Immigration: Illegal immigration, is Pauls stance effective?
    By Lord Xar in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-14-2007, 09:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •