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 have explained it you and provided SEVERAL examples that comport with the context of the remarks Spencer made about the topic.
You have decided to ignore it, and instead are now focusing on an argument I didn't even make ; the criteria is not being a net-taker vs a net-maker. Its being a member of an interloping ethnic group.
Your examples don't say how you would eliminate non-white ethnicities. Most non-white people in America aren't illegal immigrants, and changing or even eliminating the welfare state would reduce the number of non-white people but wouldn't eliminate them (it also would reduce the number of white people, for example places like West Virginia which are mostly non-white and have lots of people on disability/welfare). So it still is not clear how one would peacefully "cleanse" the country of non-whites.
Nope. Maybe the fruit vender at the corner. But it's none of my business..If he is illegal and deported, he knew the consequences.
I'm saying unless one's ancestors were here before about 1924 then they required an immigrant visa to be legal and if they didn't have one then just because they popped someone out that doesn't make the person a legitimate non-line skipper either.
Your examples don't say how you would eliminate non-white ethnicities. Most non-white people in America aren't illegal immigrants, and changing or even eliminating the welfare state would reduce the number of non-white people but wouldn't eliminate them (it also would reduce the number of white people, for example places like West Virginia which are mostly non-white and have lots of people on disability/welfare). So it still is not clear how one would peacefully "cleanse" the country of non-whites.
You're the only one talking about eliminating anyone. By definition, "peaceful ethnic cleansing", as opposed to the other varieties, doesn't involve eliminating anybody.
Most non-white people in America are immigrants, though, or recently descended from an immigrant. Some 70M of the population falls into this category. In comparison, the population of black Americans (aka African-Americans) is less than 40M.
And again, you keep insisting on extraneous criteria that nobody has argued for. One more time: the criteria is not net-maker vs net-taker, its membership in an interloping ethnic population that is foreign to the US.
You're the only one talking about eliminating anyone. By definition, "peaceful ethnic cleansing", as opposed to the other varieties, doesn't involve eliminating anybody.
Most non-white people in America are immigrants, though, or recently descended from an immigrant. Some 70M of the population falls into this category. In comparison, the population of black Americans (aka African-Americans) is less than 40M.
And again, you keep insisting on extraneous criteria that nobody has argued for. One more time: the criteria is not net-maker vs net-taker, its membership in an interloping ethnic population that is foreign to the US.
So you wouldn't eliminate the 70M that falls into that category? Would you get rid of the people that are members of an "interloping ethnic population"?
You're the only one talking about eliminating anyone. By definition, "peaceful ethnic cleansing", as opposed to the other varieties, doesn't involve eliminating anybody.
Most non-white people in America are immigrants, though, or recently descended from an immigrant. Some 70M of the population falls into this category. In comparison, the population of black Americans (aka African-Americans) is less than 40M.
And again, you keep insisting on extraneous criteria that nobody has argued for. One more time: the criteria is not net-maker vs net-taker, its membership in an interloping ethnic population that is foreign to the US.
To me its all about illegal and legal immigration policies.
And as far as ethnic cleansing goes, it's the left that opened the border globally and encourages the ethnic cleansing into a "brown" mestizos population through interracial dating. I can only surmise Democrat elitist want the US to become like Mexico with just a super rich elite and a lower class.
So you wouldn't eliminate the 70M that falls into that category? Would you get rid of the people that are members of an "interloping ethnic population"?
This has been covered already in the thread so far.
To me its all about illegal and legal immigration policies.
And as far as ethnic cleansing goes, it's the left that opened the border globally and encourages the ethnic cleansing into a "brown" mestizos population through interracial dating. I can only surmise Democrat elitist want the US to become like Mexico with just a super rich elite and a lower class.
Mexico is one of the most racist regimes in the hemisphere too, btw. I have spent much time there.
Their racial caste system is 500+ years old, and boy do they love it.
The ruling super rich elite class, well-educated, healthy, relatively tall, are white hispanics...the desperately poor, ignorant, uneducated, sickly, shorter class are the mestizos. The darker the skin, the more "Indian" the admixture, the worse off they are.
That is their system, and they defend it voraciously, all whilst lecturing us shrilling how "Racist" we all are for enforcing our immigration laws. The whiter the whiner, the more shrill and loud the shrieking...like the Ultra Blanco Jorge Ramos, and all the other gringos and gueros on Univision and Telemundo.
This has been covered already in the thread so far.
I've heard deport illegal immigrants, and cut welfare, but what about the non-white people who pay more taxes than they take and are here legally? Can they stay?
Mexico is one of the most racist regimes in the hemisphere too, btw. I have spent much time there.
Their racial caste system is 500+ years old, and boy do they love it.
The ruling super rich elite class, well-educated, healthy, relatively tall, are white hispanics...the desperately poor, ignorant, uneducated, sickly, shorter class are the mestizos. The darker the skin, the more "Indian" the admixture, the worse off they are.
That is their system, and they defend it voraciously, all whilst lecturing us shrilling how "Racist" we all are for enforcing our immigration laws. The whiter the whiner, the more shrill and loud the shrieking...like the Ultra Blanco Jorge Ramos, and all the other gringos and gueros on Univision and Telemundo.
I think the ruling Democrats and the richest in our country want to turn America into something similar to Mexico as far as two classes. They just need to get enough Latin Americans in to vote for them or get us to breed into Democrat voting mestizos .
I've heard deport illegal immigrants, and cut welfare, but what about the non-white people who pay more taxes than they take and are here legally? Can they stay?
It has nothing to do with it. The only populations affected by "peaceful ethnic cleansing" conducted from a white society's perspective, are members of interloping ethnic groups that are foreign to white nations.
Obviously there are many different ways to create more united and cohesive societies. Ethnic homogeneity is only ONE method.
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.
.
