China?
Yeah, FWIW, I myself am certainly extremely wary about importing additional Woke immigrants.
Proposals in Regards to Immigration
- Thread starter WolfBear
- Start date
China?
Yeah, FWIW, I myself am certainly extremely wary about importing additional Woke immigrants.
ParadiseLost
Well-known member
Economies of scale is about logistics, not policy.
China uses authoritarian policies to manipulate economic incentives to encourage long-term growth and economic prosperity, but it does not practice centrally planned logistics.
Here's the problem with Wokeness:
In the Jim Crow South, the law favored whites. Here, the law favors non-whites, especially blacks and Hispanics. "Jim Snow", in the words of VDARE.com's John Derbyshire.
America goes through periods of openness and periods of closeness.
The periods of closeness are periods when we aborbe the last influx of immigrants and help turn them into americans. We just spent the last 60 years taking in large numbers of people we need a period of time to absorb them all. When this process is over then we can talk about bringing more people in.
The periods of closeness are periods when we aborbe the last influx of immigrants and help turn them into americans. We just spent the last 60 years taking in large numbers of people we need a period of time to absorb them all. When this process is over then we can talk about bringing more people in.
Yeah, there's certainly value in that approach, especially if we also thoroughly purge the Wokes from prominent elite positions while we're at it!
Much tighter immigration restrictions (perhaps something comparable to the RAISE Act) in exchange for getting rid of the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency with a new US constitutional amendment? The logic behind this would be that if we will be getting less and more high-quality immigrants, then there shouldn't be as much of a perceived "need" to keep out naturalized US citizens from the Oval Office, especially if one is genuinely committed to a policy of colorblindness. National origin discrimination is just as arbitrary as racial discrimination, after all.
Thoughts on this?
Thoughts on this?
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
No, it isn't arbitrary. People have a fondness, even a divided loyalty towards former nations much of the time.
And besides, it isn't much to ask that one singular office be reserved for such. A naturalized citizen can become a judge, a Representative, a Governor, a Senator, a General, a CEO, literally every single other high-powered office in the land.
Asking that the Commander in Chief of the military and the Chief Executive be a natural-born citizen is not unreasonable.
And besides, there will be no more compromises on this issue. We know what 'compromise' on immigration looks like. We've had that crap from the Democrats for roughly forty years now. It looks like the Democrats getting what they wanted, and then never actually enforcing the border, and actively inhibiting any efforts by Republicans to do so.
Maybe we should then change it to be more consistent: Say that any US citizen who has ever previously held the citizenship of another country is automatically ineligible for the US Presidency. This would exclude both Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachmann, BTW.
And it's two offices since the US Vice Presidency is also included.
Yeah, too little to gain from this for the Democrats. The GOP would first have to pass the RAISE Act on their own before they would actually be willing to discuss this issue.
National origin discrimination is not the same as racial discrimination, and discrimination itself isn't always bad.
It's a word with nasty connotations because of the past, but we discriminate every day. Picking qualified candidates for a job and not considering less qualified candidates? That's a form of discrimination.
Our president's loyalty should be to this country only. What we have isn't perfect, but it's one way to weed out a lot of potential problems.
The natural born thing isn't because a bunch of immigrants aren't qualified, it's because we want to ensure loyalty.
And we don't even really need to tighten our current immigration laws. What we need to do is actually enforce them.
It's a word with nasty connotations because of the past, but we discriminate every day. Picking qualified candidates for a job and not considering less qualified candidates? That's a form of discrimination.
Our president's loyalty should be to this country only. What we have isn't perfect, but it's one way to weed out a lot of potential problems.
The natural born thing isn't because a bunch of immigrants aren't qualified, it's because we want to ensure loyalty.
And we don't even really need to tighten our current immigration laws. What we need to do is actually enforce them.
ProfessorCurio
MadScientist
As much as I concur on the importance of integration this does raise an interesting question.
How much integration should we actually push for?
While it may be tempting to claim that we ought strive for no less than complete integration pushing for this and utilizing coercion of any form rings unethical.
We could push for complete religious integration, however is freedom of religion and the diversity therein not part of what makes our countries such as the US tolerable?
Surely a religious position should only when violating the rights and liberties of others be so restricted.
We could push for complete language integration, however we might find folks a tad peeved at having trouble with talking to family abroad or at words and concepts English may not yet have.
We best settle for making sure everyone can speak proper English.
We could push for complete cultural integration, but should we?
It is one thing to insure they share our countries foundational values and principles and have respect for our laws as well as the history and reasoning behind them,
and it is something rather different to forcibly make them discard traditions some of which may be such things as how they treat the dead and lost loved one's or a style and tradition of cooking of because it is not the same as whatever the collective and roughly average cultural identity of our country is.
Should those of us in the Southern US be forced to act as those north do or vice versa?
We could push for complete demographic neighborhood integration, however we would need to consider such things as what groups we are willing to split and how authoritarian we can be.
Should we force folks to move away from their congregations and tell them they just have to build a new temple and convert a congregation from scratch if they want it so bad?
Should we tell them that access to their preferred cooking doesn't matter?
Should we tell them they have to say good bye to friends?
Let us settle merely for with a light touch where we may dispersing concentrations over time and not taking in too many of a given nationality at once.
Political integration?
Are we to support one party systems or something similarly atrocious?
Let us weed out extremists, but let us also allow such differences as opinions on tax policy to stand.
How far can we go before we change our own culture and government to be as authoritarian as some of the more tyrannical ones some of the immigrants fear and flee from?
We are not the borg and we shall not act like them.
Integration is important, but we need not attempt to with any force strive even roughly for total integration.
If we take things too far we will not merely face diminishing returns in terms of success, but active resistance or terrorism from individuals many of which would have otherwise been loyal citizens and some which wouldn't even be of foreign nationality or holding associated inclinations .
We would find many both domestic and abroad hating us and rightly so thinking of us as self-righteous pricks lording power over those less fortunate and forcing the desperate into that same mold without any care for details.
How much integration should we actually push for?
While it may be tempting to claim that we ought strive for no less than complete integration pushing for this and utilizing coercion of any form rings unethical.
We could push for complete religious integration, however is freedom of religion and the diversity therein not part of what makes our countries such as the US tolerable?
Surely a religious position should only when violating the rights and liberties of others be so restricted.
We could push for complete language integration, however we might find folks a tad peeved at having trouble with talking to family abroad or at words and concepts English may not yet have.
We best settle for making sure everyone can speak proper English.
We could push for complete cultural integration, but should we?
It is one thing to insure they share our countries foundational values and principles and have respect for our laws as well as the history and reasoning behind them,
and it is something rather different to forcibly make them discard traditions some of which may be such things as how they treat the dead and lost loved one's or a style and tradition of cooking of because it is not the same as whatever the collective and roughly average cultural identity of our country is.
Should those of us in the Southern US be forced to act as those north do or vice versa?
We could push for complete demographic neighborhood integration, however we would need to consider such things as what groups we are willing to split and how authoritarian we can be.
Should we force folks to move away from their congregations and tell them they just have to build a new temple and convert a congregation from scratch if they want it so bad?
Should we tell them that access to their preferred cooking doesn't matter?
Should we tell them they have to say good bye to friends?
Let us settle merely for with a light touch where we may dispersing concentrations over time and not taking in too many of a given nationality at once.
Political integration?
Are we to support one party systems or something similarly atrocious?
Let us weed out extremists, but let us also allow such differences as opinions on tax policy to stand.
How far can we go before we change our own culture and government to be as authoritarian as some of the more tyrannical ones some of the immigrants fear and flee from?
We are not the borg and we shall not act like them.
Integration is important, but we need not attempt to with any force strive even roughly for total integration.
If we take things too far we will not merely face diminishing returns in terms of success, but active resistance or terrorism from individuals many of which would have otherwise been loyal citizens and some which wouldn't even be of foreign nationality or holding associated inclinations .
We would find many both domestic and abroad hating us and rightly so thinking of us as self-righteous pricks lording power over those less fortunate and forcing the desperate into that same mold without any care for details.
History Learner
Well-known member
Middle Eastern Christians, Ukrainian war refugees, Whites from South Africa (or Zimbabwe) and that's it in terms of direct refugees from the World Island.
Agree,with one exception - there is no more white people in Zimbabwe.Well,maybe few thousends left.But - i would welcome Africaners,even when they are heretics,any day.
And add black catholics who really stopped being pagans.
If anything its a protection badly outdated by modern technology.
A CCP official's wife can fly in to USA few weeks before birth, leave few weeks after, and 30 years later the CCP princeling can come to USA as a full natural born citizen.
Loyal? Unlikely. There should be more protections than that.
ProfessorCurio
MadScientist
Need more protections?
The most obvious solution is to amend the constitution so that rather than needing to be born in the USA they need to have parents with US citizenship.
Does that not make more sense than the current arrangement?
Unfortunately the radicals can and do try to push for amendments as well, just of the less pleasant variety.
TBH, I wonder just how much of the alt-right's opposition to Islam stems from the fact that Islam is a huge obstacle to global white unity as well as from the fact that many Muslims are hostile towards Western concepts such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of satire, et cetera.
Simonbob
Well-known member
There's a lot of people thinking a lot of things about "Alt-Right", and there's no real definition, so.... Generally? There is no Alt-Right.
Edit: When I first heard the term, Alt-Right meant right wing but not fucking neo-con, and that was about it. Now? Fuck knows.
Last edited:
now alt-right is nothing more than a buzzword that the left uses to dismiss opinions.
Not a lefty? Alt-right.
Though it's use has been waning. It was a bigger term a few years ago
Rather self-preservation.Islam is religion of conqest which do not forbid slavery and fucking children.You do not live there,unless it is islam moderated by normal local culture,like Iran for example.