Can we agree that a massive influx of immigrants, legal or otherwise, will destabilize the social fabric of America? (middle east, nationalist)

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by BOS2IAD

Hardly---and you know it, too.

You can't compare what happened before the USA even existed to what is happening now.

I applaud those who obeyed our immigration laws and patiently awaited their turn to come here. When we had our house, our nearby neighbors were legal immigrants and we couldn't have asked for better neighbors. They kept up their properties and never caused any problems. While they mostly kept to themselves, we would say "hello" to one another when outside. Our next door neighbors, in particular, were very friendly and we helped each other out from time-to-time.

Lets be honest, however. Not all legal immigrants are good neighbors. Many of them buy houses and make illegal apartments in them. Get enough of them like that, and a community starts turning into a slum.

That said, the worst these days is will illegal aliens who have no business being here, let alone working. Unless you have seen your community and schools get destroyed due to illegal immigration, then you haven't a clue.

Originally Posted by jmking

I used to own a house in a well to do neighborhood in Northern Va, outside of DC. A neighbor sold their house to someone whom I never met. They lived in the house no more than 2 years. They never cut the grass or maintained the lawn. No cars out front during the day, however at night up to 10 would park in the garage, driveway and street. During weekends several people would mill about late at night, but very quiet. Complaints poured into the HOA and soon they sold. Shortly after I found out the basement was subdivided into nine bedrooms. That is not including 4 bedrooms on the upper floors.

So there were people exercising their freedoms; meanwhile (HOA) other people took their freedom away, and made them sell and relocate. (click that link, it applies here) So let me ask, what is the difference (assuming they came from Mexico) from where they came from, to where they got to? (forced migration, both sides of the border)

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

French is only the official language of Quebec not all of Canada.

Wrong.

[Kaphawoman]

Originally Posted by rjshae

Can you back that up with facts and data? Define massive. There are 44.8 million immigrants already living in the U.S as of 2018, making up 13.7% of the population.

Undocumented Immigrants Are Half as Likely to Be Arrested for Violent Crimes as U.S.-Born Citizens

Um, they SHOULD be half as likely to commit crimes since they make up less than 14% of the population . This is nothing to celebrate and not proof that illegals are innocent angels who make America safer.

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by Kaphawoman

Um, they SHOULD be half as likely to commit crimes since they make up less than 14% of the population . This is nothing to celebrate and not proof that illegals are innocent angels who make America safer.

Any site that uses the term "undocumented immigrant" is full of crap anyway. They are illegal aliens. Here are some counter links to the PC, pro-illegal one provided by that poster. Besides, the bottom line is that they have no right to be in this country anyway and that should be the real focus. A great many of them commit felony ID and/or tax evasion to.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/01/im...s-crime-rates/

https://apnews.com/article/b78a2a3c7...ca3542e4581382

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...tive-born-stu/

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...s-are-the-real

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by TMSRetired

Russia and China don't need to do anything but sit back and watch us destroy ourselves by importing millions of poor, uneducated illegals.

China may be up to taking in our throw aways --- TMSRetired, you should be aware of the 2030 problem. Even if you aren't the governments around the globe are and they are taking steps to insure, their productivity isn't hindered by the largest workforce exiting stage left. Russia, China, Japan, have changed their immigration laws to include those, that were never included before --- If a person has a brain and can be taught, they want you. They've been bringing in immigrants for idk, about 5 may be 10 years now?

During the years of the Great Depression there were more people leaving the u.s. than coming in --- they needed work and Russia was their destination. Anyone with a history book knows this --- People are human beings who migrate for one reason and one reason only --- survival. Funny for Americans to think they are any different or at least they're acting like they are --- those that leave America and don't want to be tracked, trust, they leave their wallet behind.

Migration isn't about country; move to China for their freedoms. China will take 'em, because China isn't sitting down but doing the opposite and people will go there, because they need to eat --- It's a match.

I don't know what is wrong with the u.s that it believes it doesn't need people or that it has too many people already, or perhaps it's too powerful to fail? (ego)

The Founding Fathers had it right. Give people a peaceful place to live, teach 'em, they'll want to make the country their own and raise families generation after generation and in the end the u.s. becomes a powerhouse.

So while the u.s. is taking steps to reverse (i guess not everyone got assimilated) u.s. priorities on immigration and pull the skid breaks on it --- countries that people had a more difficult time getting into have opened up their doors. "Fill out the paperwork folks and step right here, we'll get you started' ... Interesting turn of events. Seems to me everyone throughout history was watching the u.s., and how it got done, but the u.s.

If the trend in birth rate continues as it is in decline --- people the human being will become the commodity that countries can't get enough of --- except for the u.s. of course, where logic just doesn't seem to come into play.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

It is was the vision of those that established this country to make it a safe port for those caught in a storm.

"The number of purely white People in the world is proportionately very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the newcomers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal body of white people on the face of the Earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the Eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red?" - Benjamin Franklin

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." - Thomas Jefferson

"Any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen." - Naturalization Act of 1790


The United States did allow people to come here to sell their labor and produce goods to be sold to markets, but immigration has never existed for humanitarian reasons. And until pretty recently it was mostly restricted to "white people"(which didn't always include southern or eastern Europe).

This idea that the founders wanted us to be some kind of open-borders multicultural utopia that invited in the world's poor with no consideration to race, ancestry, religion, etc, is so absurd I shouldn't even have to explain why it is wrong.

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Controlling man's migration, is about controlling nature. Migration is as natural as nature intended it to be.

Lions stake out a territory and pretty much never leave it even when they're starving. To wander into the territory of another lion either means conquest or death.

The only reason humans allow immigration is because it is profitable/advantageous(for the rulers). Otherwise migration means displacement and the division of resources.

You are correct that migration is natural, but so is opposition to migration. Animals do not naturally share their resources except out of necessity(IE strength in numbers). Migration is thus as natural as conquest, theft, and murder.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

"The number of purely white People in the world is proportionately very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the newcomers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal body of white people on the face of the Earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the Eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red?" - Benjamin Franklin

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." - Thomas Jefferson

"Any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen." - Naturalization Act of 1790


The United States did allow people to come here to sell their labor and produce goods to be sold to markets, but immigration has never existed for humanitarian reasons. And until pretty recently it was mostly restricted to "white people"(which didn't always include southern or eastern Europe).

This idea that the founders wanted us to be some kind of open-borders multicultural utopia that invited in the world's poor with no consideration to race, ancestry, religion, etc, is so absurd I shouldn't even have to explain why it is wrong.



Lions stake out a territory and pretty much never leave it even when they're starving. To wander into the territory of another lion either means conquest or death.

The only reason humans allow immigration is because it is profitable/advantageous(for the rulers). Otherwise migration means displacement and the division of resources.

You are correct that migration is natural, but so is opposition to migration. Animals do not naturally share their resources except out of necessity(IE strength in numbers). Migration is thus as natural as conquest, theft, and murder.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

This idea that the founders wanted us to be some kind of open-borders multicultural utopia that invited in the world's poor with no consideration to race, ancestry, religion, etc, is so absurd I shouldn't even have to explain why it is wrong.

What you're missing is their escape of the persecution that had been endured in the old country under the Kings rule by those who came here and settled this land --- You're missing, the u.s. Constitution (in its original form) the Bill of Rights and "All men are created equal and we hold these truths to be self evident --- You see the words, but you don't see the people who wrote them and or the era. But you can find they too had prejudice so with that comes your belief that the New World being a safe port of folks suffering persecution is a farce. That's fine --- agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Migration is thus as natural as conquest, theft, and murder.

Exactly. Just because some little dude came down from a mountain top with words written supposedly from a super being thou shalt not kill people stopped doing it. They said, well that's great and went on about their happy a-- for the next 4000 years and there's been killing all over the place.

The only difference between a four legged creature doing it and the two legged one, is the two legged one comes with words --- 'oh well you see, this this and this happened, therefore it was justified', Like that makes a bit of difference --- If wolves could talk.

Prehistoric man had freedom of movement. Modern man still would, if he didn't have the ego about him that he had to control everything, including other men. But the one thing that man cannot control is nature and that's where we're at.

Man isn't chosen up out of nature --- he's very much a part of it, even though he chooses, not to believe it. (read up on natural rights philosophies if you like)

In the 1500s probably up to about 1700 man had a place to go, some what uninhabited areas, where as making a place like the u.s. made that possible. Today, the same can not be said --- so now what is man going to do?

And that is what everyone is afraid of --- the fabric of the u.s. and changing that, but imo, changing what --- ? it's been changing for the last 450 years, you'd think people would be use to it by now. Guess not.

[Corrie22]

People are not animals......there's culture and social that people work and strive for

anyone can go down.....it takes work every day to go up

...and the people that work every day to go up...don't like this crap dragging them down

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

What you're missing is their escape of the persecution that had been endured in the old country under the Kings rule by those who came here and settled this land.

1) The Puritans did leave Britain because they were angry at King James, but the Puritans were also hypocrites who were ten times more oppressive than the King ever was.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ance-61312684/

2) The largest state in the union at the outset of the Revolutionary War was Virginia. The people of Virginia did not come to the United States to escape persecution. They were almost entirely of British stock, who were part of what amounts to the American version of the Church of England(Episcopal church). The Virginians came here to make money and were more than happy to use slaves to do it.

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

You're missing the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all men are created equal. You see the words, but you don't see the people who wrote them and or the era.

Thomas Jefferson may have said all men were created equal but is that what he believed? If not, what did he really mean? What kind of world was Thomas Jefferson trying to create? What would he think of America today?

Africans in America/Part 3/Jefferson's <I>Notes on the State of Virginia</I>

You keep claiming the founding fathers intended the United States to be a colorblind society which accepts the world's persecuted with open arms. And while I understand why you want to believe that, it simply isn't true, and you're too smart to believe it.

My real question to you Ellis Bell is, why do you care? Is that really the country you want? And if so, fast-forward 100 years, what would it look like? What is it that you really want?

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

it's been changing for the last 450 years, you'd think people would be use to it by now. Guess not.

What caused the change? Is change inevitable? Did people oppose the change back then? Why? Was every change a good thing? What is wrong with being opposed to change?

[EDnurse]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

I mean it already has to some extent.

Look, countries with the least diversity have the least crime, and countries with the most have the most crime.

Nigeria, Honduras, Brazil, Mexico, Uganda, etc. are all ethnically diverse countries with a great amount of infighting. American policy has usually been about maintaining a certain demographic makeup (before 1965).

After 1965 we saw a jump in crime, and then it lowered after 1994 (crime bill). But the prison population skyrocketed so all that did was move crime from the streets to the prison yard. It was just a cap on a problem that continues to grow.

Diversity is not good for the migrants or the citizens of this country. It will not end well, I am sorry.

Oh please, didn’t you study this in High School? You need to read more or at least watch some documentaries.

The same was said in the latter part of the 19th century with the Irish. Then they started ragging on the Eastern Europeans, the Italians and the Jews.

Look at them all now: calling themselves “whites” and ragging on the the Hispanics, etc.

Pretty soon, when their numbers start dwindling, the whites will incorporate white hispanics with a tan in their group and thus they’ll maintain majority status.