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.
Canada has put a number of laws into effect that "preserve their culture" by requiring French and so forth.
Is that bad too?
I don't care what color or religion etc. people are if we're talking selective legal immigration then I'm cool with it.
However, no way in heck am I dumb enough to look at various s-holes around this planet and think to myself how it'd be a good thing to just let 200,000 into the country in bulk.
Except the real number would be more like two billion. More than five billion people live in countries poorer than Mexico. How many of them do you think would move here if we let them?
Except the real number would be more like two billion. More than five billion people live in countries poorer than Mexico. How many of them do you think would move here if we let them?
That gradual blending ultimately blends the the original people out of existence -- which is to say, it amounts to genocide.
What? Seriously? You realize the incoming people are also not the same people, if a white and a black have a baby, the baby is as much white as he is black, neither side loses or wins, it's not a genocide as much as is not an auto-genocide.
People will do anything to make sure that their pure bred dog or horse or rabbit or goat maintains a pure bloodline, but dont give a second thought to their own children!
The problem is the sudden mass influx of immigrants into any country causes upheaval.
Controlled immigration allows a gradual blending process to take place reducing stress and conflict on both ends.
Cultures evolve. Mass migration generates revolution instead of evolution to destabilize society. The benefit of society is stability.
Politicians take words out of context and essentially shut down any meaningful discussion by labeling the speaker as morally undesirable, his words therefore can be discounted.
Oh, there is a blending process alright. I have noticed that every year more and more white people are marrying or breeding outside their race.
So, sooner or later, mixed race people are going to be the majority.
Of course King is a racist. Anyone who denies that is a racist themselves
I'm no racist, and while I do not have a position on whether or not King is, I do not see this statement as inherently racist. Being married to a woman of a different ethnicity, I tend to be somewhat sensitive to issues pertaining to race, but this doesn't set my spidey-senses to tingling at all. I don't fully agree by any means, and I think that at best his remark was poorly worded, but I think his general point was understandable and defensible. I think that what he was saying was that every country has a core of values, traditions, and customs, and that this core is the essence of who that country is - and that if you want to keep the country true to that core, you need to manage and control the influx of new cultural influences. If that's what he was saying, I don't see any problem with it, and I don't see why so many other people would.
I don't get why this was such a big deal. I think CNN needed something to hysterically pounce on, so they picked this. I am underwhelmed.
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.
