White Extinction Anxiety

[TLK Valentine]

I think that such a world simply won't exist mind you. People tend to stick to their own ethnic communities. But I agree, let the chips fall where they may. Where we disagree might be in letting countries decide their ethnic futures.

Assume that we allow the countries to "decide their ethnic futures."

How exactly would they do this? Stopping ethnics at the border only does so much. What do you do about the ones already in the country? The ones outbreeding the desired race?

 

[Redac]

No, it doesn't. But then again, a world where ethnicity is irrelevant because everyone has just kept sleeping with everyone until we're all the same color (to paraphrase Senator Bullworth) isn't such a bad thing either.

I'm not suggesting that we actively work towards one goal or the other... what say we just let the chips fall where they may?

Problem is that this is something being actively encouraged. It's not just the chips falling where they may. When people are allowed to make their own decisions about who they associate with, generally speaking they tend to divide among racial and ethnic lines. That, of course, wouldn't be acceptable, would it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Problem is that this is something being actively encouraged. It's not just the chips falling where they may. When people are allowed to make their own decisions about who they associate with, generally speaking they tend to divide among racial and ethnic lines. That, of course, wouldn't be acceptable, would it?

Why wouldn't it? As long as they're not being influenced by the government, why shouldn't people be allowed to associate themselves with whomever they want?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Or maybe we can add people who are willing to work to our economy, which is a win-win: they win by getting the refuge they need and deserve, and we receive the economic boost that we need.

In case it's escaped the notice of many Americans, we're not the only country in the world with problems. The "America First" stuff is just selfishness, pure and simple.
Ringo

Official figures show they're a drain...not a boost...to the economy. To the tune of 111+ billion dollars a year. That may only add up to a trillion a decade...but its a trillion we can't afford to throw away on non-americans.

 

[Moral Orel]

Official figures show they're a drain...not a boost...to the economy. To the tune of 111+ billion dollars a year. That may only add up to a trillion a decade...but its a trillion we can't afford to throw away on non-americans.

Citation please? I'm not going to argue on this one, but I am curious.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Citation please? I'm not going to argue on this one, but I am curious.

Not the source I was thinking, but this one is close at 115 billion.
https://www.fairus.org/issue/public...n-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

 

[Ringo84]

Official figures show they're a drain...not a boost...to the economy. To the tune of 111+ billion dollars a year. That may only add up to a trillion a decade...but its a trillion we can't afford to throw away on non-americans.

I'd love to see these so-called "official figures", because Trump's own administration produced this report:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html

Why can't we "afford" to "throw away" money on non-Americans? Why are we more "entitled" to spending to help the sick, the poor, the needy than refugees?
Ringo

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'd love to see these so-called "official figures", because Trump's own administration produced this report:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html

Why can't we "afford" to "throw away" money on non-Americans? Why are we more "entitled" to spending to help the sick, the poor, the needy than refugees?
Ringo

Are you seriously asking these questions?

 

[Ringo84]

Are you seriously asking these questions?

I'm seriously asking these questions. You said it; now defend it.
Ringo

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm seriously asking these questions. You said it; now defend it.
Ringo

Ok...

Because that's the whole point of forming a nation. People who share a culture, interests, and beliefs in certain rights decided it was worth generations of bloodshed and sacrifice so that we had a place of our own. If we just let everyone in, regardless of what culture, regardless of what their beliefs are...then what's the point of having a nation at all?

We aren't here to take care of the world's poor and give them free healthcare, schooling, and handouts from our taxes. These are all better spent on our own people.

 

[Ringo84]

Ok...

Because that's the whole point of forming a nation. People who share a culture, interests, and beliefs in certain rights decided it was worth generations of bloodshed and sacrifice so that we had a place of our own. If we just let everyone in, regardless of what culture, regardless of what their beliefs are...then what's the point of having a nation at all?

We're not talking about "let[ting] everyone in", but treating migrants who come here seeking refuge with simple human dignity and respect. The choice of "sovereignty" and "open borders" (which is not what anyone is calling for) is a false choice.

We aren't here to take care of the world's poor and give them free healthcare, schooling, and handouts from our taxes. These are all better spent on our own people.

Why? Why are they better spent on "our own people"? Are "our people" the only ones suffering? Are they the only ones hungry? Sick? Lacking good schooling?

If rights are truly inalienable, then they don't just apply to Americans. They apply to everyone. Equally.
Ringo

 

[Ana the Ist]

We're not talking about "let[ting] everyone in", but treating migrants who come here seeking refuge with simple human dignity and respect. The choice of "sovereignty" and "open borders" (which is not what anyone is calling for) is a false choice.



Why? Why are they better spent on "our own people"? Are "our people" the only ones suffering? Are they the only ones hungry? Sick? Lacking good schooling?

If rights are truly inalienable, then they don't just apply to Americans. They apply to everyone. Equally.
Ringo

Really?

Cuz here's what you said...

"Or maybe we can add people who are willing to work to our economy, which is a win-win: they win by getting the refuge they need and deserve, and we receive the economic boost that we need.

In case it's escaped the notice of many Americans, we're not the only country in the world with problems. The "America First" stuff is just selfishness, pure and simple.
Ringo"

What part of that includes the US throwing people out of our nation back into theirs?

 

[Ana the Ist]

We're not talking about "let[ting] everyone in", but treating migrants who come here seeking refuge with simple human dignity and respect. The choice of "sovereignty" and "open borders" (which is not what anyone is calling for) is a false choice.

You sure seem to be calling for it...

There's a simple fact that without any sort of punishment, there's little reason not to break a law again.

Why? Why are they better spent on "our own people"?

Because they're our people...Americans. There's not much point to being American if we treat another nation's poor better than our own. Why shouldn't we show more concern for those in our own nation than those in some distant nation?

Are "our people" the only ones suffering? Are they the only ones hungry? Sick? Lacking good schooling?

Of course not, there's lots of poor nations all over the world...and we provide aid to many of them. We should get to choose who receives that aid though...not simply feed every begger with a hand out. We can't afford to do that.

 

[Ringo84]

You sure seem to be calling for it...

"Seem to be" calling for something and actually doing it are two different things. I said that people seeking asylum, because they're fleeing violence, should probably get it.

There's a simple fact that without any sort of punishment, there's little reason not to break a law again.

Law with no compassion is not law worth having. The "crime" of crossing the border illegally is not something that strikes me as egregious enough to justify ripping children away from their parents and locking them in concentration camps.

Because they're our people...Americans. There's not much point to being American if we treat another nation's poor better than our own. Why shouldn't we show more concern for those in our own nation than those in some distant nation?

OK, then put your money where your mouth is. I propose that we spend money to help our poor and that we also send money and aid to central American countries to help them overcome their problems.

At the end of the day, that's what "zero tolerance" immigration policies miss: that there are reasons why people risk so much to cross our border. Rather than trying to "punish" them with onerous laws, we should address the root causes of illegal immigration, protect asylum seekers, and reform the immigration system so that it's easier for people who want citizenship to get it.

Of course not, there's lots of poor nations all over the world...and we provide aid to many of them. We should get to choose who receives that aid though...not simply feed every begger with a hand out. We can't afford to do that.

I don't say that we should "feed every beggar". But neither should we take an "America first" approach that ignores the poor, the oppressed, the sick the world over.
Ringo

 

[TLK Valentine]

Official figures show they're a drain...not a boost...to the economy. To the tune of 111+ billion dollars a year. That may only add up to a trillion a decade...but its a trillion we can't afford to throw away on non-americans.

Why not? Donald threw away that much with a single tax cut.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"Seem to be" calling for something and actually doing it are two different things. I said that people seeking asylum, because they're fleeing violence, should probably get it.

Or at the very least, get a fair chance to plead their case to someone with the authority to give it.

We can't afford to help everyone, but we have a moral duty to at least listen...

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Assume that we allow the countries to "decide their ethnic futures."

How exactly would they do this? Stopping ethnics at the border only does so much. What do you do about the ones already in the country? The ones outbreeding the desired race?

Not shaming countries into accepting thousands if not hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants with cultures and religions totally different than the host country might be a start. Letting the host country control the flow of people into it's country might be a good start as well. I don't think any country is going to say no to everyone, rather what they want is the best of the best from any racial, religious group. New Zealand has a Policy of not allowing anyone who earn's less than 50k a year to not remain legally in the country.

As to out breeding. I'm not sure what can be done. I assume once certain peoples become a minority in their own country (this is the projection) a culture shift which encourages marriage and children will happen in the future.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not shaming countries into accepting thousands if not hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants with cultures and religions totally different than the host country might be a start. Letting the host country control the flow of people into it's country might be a good start as well.

All of which I just said will only accomplish so much. You did read my post before you quoted it, did you not?

I don't think any country is going to say no to everyone, rather what they want is the best of the best from any racial, religious group. New Zealand has a Policy of not allowing anyone who earn's less than 50k a year to not remain legally in the country.

Sounds like ethnic purity takes a back seat to money. Color me shocked.

As to out breeding. I'm not sure what can be done. I assume once certain peoples become a minority in their own country (this is the projection) a culture shift which encourages marriage and children will happen in the future.

Are you saying marriage and children aren't culturally encouraged now?

And who's to say that the dominant culture wouldn't discourage it?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

All of which I just said will only accomplish so much. You did read my post before you quoted it, did you not?



Sounds like ethnic purity takes a back seat to money. Color me shocked.

I think it will accomplish more than you realize. It will not only force Europeans to solve their own problems population wise but also those countries where these illegal immigrants are coming from to solve their problems. If the west takes everyone, presume that the west takes the best and brightest, we are in effect condemning these countries to be perpetually poor.

Also, yes money does speak louder, at least at the moment. I guarantee you if the Maori Population of NZ began to decline rapidly there would calls to limit the amount of immigration and no one would object.

Are you saying marriage and children aren't culturally encouraged now?

And who's to say that the dominant culture wouldn't discourage it?

One need only look at the bad birth rates of western countries to determine there is problem with having children no?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think it will accomplish more than you realize.

If it accomplishes anything, that would certainly be more than I realize. Isolationism traditionally doesn't work.

It will not only force Europeans to solve their own problems population wise

And what problems are those?

but also those countries where these illegal immigrants are coming from to solve their problems.

Or they don't and die -- not our problem, right?

If the west takes everyone, presume that the west takes the best and brightest, we are in effect condemning these countries to be perpetually poor.

Would the west want those countries to be rich? Cheap labor has to come from somewhere...

Also, yes money does speak louder, at least at the moment. I guarantee you if the Maori Population of NZ began to decline rapidly there would calls to limit the amount of immigration and no one would object.

...or particularly care.

One need only look at the bad birth rates of western countries to determine there is problem with having children no?

Well, assuming that people still know how (not necessarily a given, sex education being what it is), the real issues are financial. You need two incomes these days to afford a family, and then who raises them?

Not sure how isolationism fixes that.