SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
...and come off as utter idiots, because everyone will remember how they themselves came from immigrant families.
Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
I did?
If I have to go back over three generations...yeah, I'm not really related to immigrants. At that point, I'm born and bred.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
So close, yet so far.
Anyways, there's no reason to give intellectual reasons. Simple fact is that your areas will be dealing with a spike in population and you have the full right to decide otherwise. While I'm political pro freedom of movement, the interests of the local shareholders must not be ignored.
@SoliFortissimi
At a certain point, there's no such thing as a native to ANY location on Earth.
Political Freedom of Movement...
WTH does that mean?
At a certain point, there's no such thing as a native to ANY location on Earth.
Political Freedom of Movement...
WTH does that mean?
Last edited:
DarthOne
☦️
Exactly!
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
It means he's functionally pro-open border immigration but doesn't want to say it like that.
Cause that's what Freedom of Movement is, in the context of immigration.
He further tries to obfuscate his being politically pro-open borders by saying the local opinions/interests are important.
Which nominally just shoves all of the immigrants into urban areas where they form enclaves, which is bad because they don't integrate.
Because local interests in rural and semi-rural areas are pretty anti-immigrant unless that immigrant is going to live, spend, and integrate there. Most migrant workers, legal and illegal, send money away from these rural areas, actually contributing to the long decay.
It's also against urban interests as massive amounts of unchecked immigration cause social upheavals, rising crime, violence, wage deflation, weaking of the individual's political power, exploitation of the new underclass, and other not fun things.
See things such as: Rome being sacked multiple times by barbarian immigrants pushed into Roman lands by pre-Tartar/Mongol immigrants pushing into Eastern Europe, the multi century Seljuk immigration into Anatolia and subsequent fall of Byzantium, Yuan Dynasty China, Qing Dynasty China, the reasoning for building the Great Wall, the formation of Hungary, the spikes in exceedingly violent crime and violent resistance against the police in CA (and other places in the USA) from Vietnamese (and other) immigrants back in the sixties to eighties that had a massive influence on modern policing, the incredibly shit mistreatment of the Polish and the Irish (and more) immigrants to America in the 19th century, the functional slavery of Chinese immigrants that built the railroads.
(Historically, there was very little difference between unchecked mass migration over an unsecured or open border and an invasion.)
Also, my family has been in the states for at least nine direct paternal generations. Am I the child of immigrants? My family is literally in history books (Kelley's Island, Lake Erie, Ohio). My direct ancestors. Who have 'great' at least twice as a familial pre-fix they're from so long ago.
The line 'America is a nation of immigrants' was so that the non-immigrants would stop treating the new eastern European immigrants like shit.
But it's untrue.
Like the Garifuna being 'indigenous' to Belize when they came here in the 1800s after escaping slavery. If I'm the child of immigrants, then they are colonizers.
We were a nation of pioneers, frontiersmen, colonizers. And now we're just another modern nation.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Poe
Well-known member
All four of my grandparents are descended from English (and Scottish) people who were here before the revolution, two of them are from families who were here during the 1600s. I no more "come from immigrants" than an English person in England "comes from immigrants." If your great grandparents were here in the 1800s you aren't "descended" from immigrants and anyway that policy wasn't all that popular at the time either. It's more accurate to say the government has been forcing waves of immigration on a population who didn't want it for a century and a half.
Nigeria gives the UK a run for its money.
A pregnant Nigerian woman was arrested and jailed for making an online post criticizing a brand of tomato puree Her crime? Literally just complaining online about how the puree had too much sugar in it. The state is alleging this constitutes trying to incite a mob against the company. She's also charged with conspiring with two other people "with the intention of instigating people against" the company which makes the puree. Also, the company that makes the puree is suing her.
A pregnant Nigerian woman was arrested and jailed for making an online post criticizing a brand of tomato puree Her crime? Literally just complaining online about how the puree had too much sugar in it. The state is alleging this constitutes trying to incite a mob against the company. She's also charged with conspiring with two other people "with the intention of instigating people against" the company which makes the puree. Also, the company that makes the puree is suing her.
Actually it seems to be one woman in particular, the lawyer Sonny Hostin IIRC (I recall she's the most anti-Trump of a show of Anti-Trumpers and always bickering with the lukewarm Conservative they always have on the panel and was hating on Joe Rogan for some reason a while back) was stating the riduculous things about not just the Solar Eclipse, but also the recent earthquake and CICADAS returning.
Whoopi Goldberg actually corrected her pronunciation of Cicadas, apparently informed her of the correct times they do return (Sonny shot it down by stating that "disagreed with what I read") and Joy Behar whose like almost as annoying but in a loud Jewish Aunt sort of way immediately stated that earthquakes aren't related to climate change and then Whoopi was like they knew the eclipse was a thing years and years ago.
Amusing to see them try and reel the young person back to reality while on National TV.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Pictured: a man denies being descended from immigrants after describing exactly when and where his ancestors immigrated from.
This is why I keep saying that nobody here is serious. It's like reverse SV in here. What's the problem in just going "alright, we don't want immigrants crowding our city"? Why do you have to try to make up easily refuted, nonsensical pseudo-intellectual arguments?
Wargamer08
Well-known member
Yes, if you stretch the definition of a word far past it's breaking point you can easily refute any arguments. On the other hand, only people arguing in the worst kind of bad faith are going to say that a 7th generation citizen of a country is by any definition an immigrant. Take your intellectual grandstanding back to SV.
mrttao
Well-known member
immigrants move into a prosperous country.
pioneers move into an empty plot of land and build a country from scratch.
those are not the same.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
The definition of an immigrant is literally just someone who lives in a country he wasn't born in and makes it his home. Which describes the ancestors of every single person in the US who isn't an immigrant themselves.
So once again, let's be serious here. No need to make spurious arguments to distract from the real arguments.
No, immigrants are just people who move into another country. That's it. Pioneers are just immigrants who staked their claim before other immigrants from their own country. The natives, of course, lived there for centuries before any Englishman did- but were incapable of defending their claims.
Oh, well, sucks to be them.
Wargamer08
Well-known member
Nah you want to be reductive? Those natives the pioneers displaced were merely immigrants who killed and displaced the previous natives. And so on and so on back to the beginning of human existence. Taking that reductive a view of things just endlessly spirals.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
That's invaders, not immigrants. Germans weren't immigrating to France in 1941, they were invading it.
Once again, let's stop being ridiculous here. This fools nobody except maybe yourself, and nobody in the general voting populace wants to be associated with fools.
mrttao
Well-known member
The word you are looking for is sold.
The natives sold lands to european migrants.
Then they tried to steal back the lands they sold. In a series of wars that they started, and then lost.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Some of the time.
The relationship between the colonists/pioneers and the native tribes is as varied as the tribes.
The leftist view of 'whitey is always the bad guy' is just as wrong as 'whitey is always the good-guy,' though I'm fairly sure you weren't trying to argue for either.
If immigrant can be defined as 'people who move to X place' the definition is pointless because that includes EVERYONE.
I think the most reasonable of people would more accurately describe immigrant as something like 'people moving to new place recently, and not for conquest or colonialization purposes'.
I think the most reasonable of people would more accurately describe immigrant as something like 'people moving to new place recently, and not for conquest or colonialization purposes'.