Wanting to Preserve Your Way of Life Does Not Make You Racist or Fascist (examples, education)
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.
I'd agree but the world's a small place in 2015 and many of the CDF posters DO live in Europe and Asia.
Too; what happens in 1 place CAN affect things in other places. Like what happens in Mexico or Russia can worry us.
It's a good chance that most CD posters that replied to this thread don't live in Europe. But that's besides the point. The EU's immigration policies aren't even remotely similar to America's. Our migrants come mostly from Mexico, central America, and South America. We share the same religion as the majority of our immigrants. The European Union is in a totally different boat. What is happening over there is not and will not happen over here. We don't boarder the same type of countries...
Obama and Kerry are already inviting 200,000 Muslim "refugees" into this country.
And what are these 200,000 going to do once they get here ? Do they have cash or do we have to feed, house and clothe them ? Are they going to be productive members of society or non-assimilators ?
Obama and Kerry are already inviting 200,000 Muslim "refugees" into this country.
source please because I can't find a reference to that claim..anywhere.
Quote:
The U.S. plans to accept at least 5,000 additional refugees next year—and is considering a potential increase of thousands more—in response to a burgeoning global migrant crisis, Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers Wednesday, according to congressional aides at the meeting.
Mr. Kerry told lawmakers that the U.S. expects to take at least 75,000 refugees from all parts of the world in 2016, the aides said. That is an increase from this year’s total, 70,000.
Uh; you need to have a talk with the "Siamese Twins" in North Carolina before the Civil War because they NEVER got the word they should NOT marry AND have kids with white ladies. LOL!
Those anti asian laws were ONLY meant for Asian born "Orientals", NOT their US born kids. They WERE able to buy land, even in Cali. I think the "Ark" decision cleared that up because the kid was US born to LEGAL aliens from China.
Well as you've seen, anti-miscengenation laws do vary from state to state. And acceptance varies from family to family.
Thank you very much for reminding us of the discriminatory laws that prohibited Japanese-born aliens in the early 20th century from owning land (mostly in California). Incidentally they weren't allowed to be naturalized. So what they did was to register the land or other property in the names of their native born children.
Yes, the Ark decision pretty much enshrined the citizenship birthright in the Constitution, which some folks on this board dislike greatly and want to do away with it. Dream on.
Oh and BTW, today, Orientals as a term describes rugs, not people (which is an archaic usage). But I figured you're just trying to be deliberate about that.
Some people prefer to address issues, rather than individuals...particularly individuals who think it's all about them. And frankly, you add little of substance to the discussion because all you do is try to pit liberal against conservative; that's in almost every single post you make.
I have not checked in here in a while, and I thank phetaroi for the help in my absence, all very true, but also I hardly have the time to specifically address all the twisted thought that some people are so good and fond of expressing. Of course try to respond to the issues a little more generally (and with the time available), and it all goes down the brain drain of some as just a "little speech."
Truth be told, however, I would love to take on each and every one little issue that seems to well demonstrate how little is really understood about these issues from a public policy standpoint. Right now I just have time for this little point of clarification that no doubt may still have dechatelet in a twist, about assimilation.
This is merely semantics and the insistence about this draws from the more important issue of assimilation being addressed today in this country and the world. Nevertheless, just FYI, there is such a thing as forced assimilation, as did happen in Nazi Germany, regardless what you may know, think or feel about this. I am not trying to avoid anything, just sharing a different understanding (view, perspective) is all, along with some facts, as follows:
Forced assimilation is a process of forced cultural assimilation of religious or ethnic minority groups, into an established and generally larger community. Also enforcement of a new language in legislation, education, litterature, worshiping counts as forced assimilation. Forced assimilation can, and has been, used both by minorities against majority as well as the opposite. Unlike Ethnic cleansing isn't the local population forced to leave a certain area. Instead the population becomes assimilated by force. It has oftenly been used after an area has changed nationality, often in the aftermath of war. Some examples are both the German and French forced assimilation in the provinces Alsace and (atleast a part of) Lorraine, and some decades after the Swedish conquests of the Danish provinces Scania, Blekinge and Halland the local population was submitted to forced assimilation.
THE POINT: much like the Nazis who were obsessed about preserving the German race and culture, intent on spreading it as well (aka Germanization), there are folks in this country with the same sort of inclinations, while I am not so inspired. I like having people around me that are from different cultures, with different languages, that look and sound different -- are different. Accordingly, I am simply more accepting of evidence that immigrants have not assimilated while others are altogether upset if not intolerant about immigrants, because they ARE different.
We can go back-and-forth about the semantics, but I think the issue here is really one of perspective. Not facts or history, but tolerance vs intolerance, the want or need to be surrounded by like kind or not.
Well as you've seen, anti-miscengenation laws do vary from state to state. And acceptance varies from family to family.
Thank you very much for reminding us of the discriminatory laws that prohibited Japanese-born aliens in the early 20th century from owning land (mostly in California). Incidentally they weren't allowed to be naturalized. So what they did was to register the land or other property in the names of their native born children.
Yes, the Ark decision pretty much enshrined the citizenship birthright in the Constitution, which some folks on this board dislike greatly and want to do away with it. Dream on.
Oh and BTW, today, Orientals as a term describes rugs, not people (which is an archaic usage). But I figured you're just trying to be deliberate about that.
Things change. Tho I'd LIKE to see our immigration laws changed to favor people from 1st World countries like Ireland, England, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy, Sweden, Botswana and so on.
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.