Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The La Raza groups support amnesty for Hispanic illegal aliens. I'd like to see Mecha SPLC and so on checked out by the legal system.
That does not change the fact that most anti illegal groups have been founded by neo nazis white supremacists or have received millions from pro-eugenics funds.
Hence the enthusiasm of John Maynard Keynes, director of the Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944, for contraception, essential because the working class was too "drunken and ignorant" to keep its numbers down.
Look at that, John Keynes, you know the economist that BO and the Progressives like to think is their hero when it comes to the saving the economy.
You do realize that white nationalists also give to democrat groups too, right? Look to planned parent hood and monies they receive for specific abortions.
You do realize that white nationalists also give to democrat groups too, right? Look to planned parent hood and monies they receive for specific abortions.
The pro-eugenic group that I am refering to is Called the pioneer fund (which gave 1 million dollars to FAIR ) and I believe is not partisan. However, FAIR obviously is behind a lot of laws for the GOP. You can google it.
That does not change the fact that most anti illegal groups have been founded by neo nazis white supremacists or have received millions from pro-eugenics funds.
Even IF you're right: few people care anymore. I don't like the storm front types at all but I like illegal aliens and their allies LESS. Sheesh!
The pro-eugenic group that I am refering to is Called the pioneer fund (which gave 1 million dollars to FAIR ) and I believe is not partisan. However, FAIR obviously is behind a lot of laws for the GOP. You can google it.
I know who the pioneer fund is, I know what they do, you have introduced nothing but assertion and assumption. So, FAIR has pushed for immigration reform and is a national, nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization of concerned citizens who share a common belief that our nation's immigration policies must be reformed to serve the national interest.They are Conservationists (Democrat ideals) wanting to limit legal immigration and remove illegals. The (R's) only agree with them in the fact that illegals need to be removed from the US. For this there are both economic reasons (illegals cost $14B in GDP - and $89K per illegal to tax payers) and Conservationist reasons (the land can not support more population growth - finite resources)
How about providing some links for your assertions?
I would highly recommend that you understand the claims you are making and due your research, as your claims are but Progressive rhetoric filled with ignorance.
Nothing wrong with English ONLY. Tho I do agree with the rest of what you said.
Nothing wrong except for the crippling effect it has on our ability to compete on an international level. The more languages you understand, the better. Furthermore, it goes against traditional tolerance for languages of immigrants, the diversity and mix of which in, say, New York or New Orleans define at least part of their greatness. We have tolerated bilingual Italians and Chinese. Are we all of a sudden going to change arbitrarily in a way that has no substantive advantage or purpose? Of what utility is banning any non-English language, so long as English is the common ground? I think there is at the very least a significant practical problem with English ONLY. We will not compete with India or China when they are bilingual or trilingual and we are "English only."
That does not change the fact that most anti illegal groups have been founded by neo nazis white supremacists or have received millions from pro-eugenics funds.
Is this rhetoric, or is there an accounting for this claim?
Nothing wrong except for the crippling effect it has on our ability to compete on an international level. The more languages you understand, the better. Furthermore, it goes against traditional tolerance for languages of immigrants, the diversity and mix of which in, say, New York or New Orleans define at least part of their greatness. We have tolerated bilingual Italians and Chinese. Are we all of a sudden going to change arbitrarily in a way that has no substantive advantage or purpose? Of what utility is banning any non-English language, so long as English is the common ground? I think there is at the very least a significant practical problem with English ONLY. We will not compete with India or China when they are bilingual or trilingual and we are "English only."
Making English the official language doesn't mean English only, or banning other languages. It simply means government business will be conducted in English, and governemnt documents printed in English. People will still be free to speak whatever language they choose, but it would make English the common ground officially.
That does not change the fact that most anti illegal groups have been founded by neo nazis white supremacists or have received millions from pro-eugenics funds.
Most citizens, although they don't belong to any group, and therefore aren't supported by neo-Nazis, or white supremecists, oppose illegal immigration. They just want the immigration laws enforced.
Nothing wrong except for the crippling effect it has on our ability to compete on an international level. The more languages you understand, the better. Furthermore, it goes against traditional tolerance for languages of immigrants, the diversity and mix of which in, say, New York or New Orleans define at least part of their greatness. We have tolerated bilingual Italians and Chinese. Are we all of a sudden going to change arbitrarily in a way that has no substantive advantage or purpose? Of what utility is banning any non-English language, so long as English is the common ground? I think there is at the very least a significant practical problem with English ONLY. We will not compete with India or China when they are bilingual or trilingual and we are "English only."
Are you suggesting that regular Americans all be forced to learn a foreign language? What for? When would they use it? What language or languages are you suggesting they learn? Those who deal with foreign countries in the business world may have reason to learn another language however English is the language of business across the planet. Most Americans are not in that type of business.
Again, there is no English only legislation being considered. What has been suggested is to make English our official language. How would that jeapordize us in the business world? Many countries that do business globally have an official language. Are they showing intolerance for foreingners just because they have an official language? Since most may only know their country's official language how is that impeding business? I just don't know where you are going with this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look to planned parent hood and monies they receive for specific abortions.
