Immigration

[Harry Smith]

I've seen over like the last 2-3 years just in Britain alone people have became extremely hostile towards immigrants, everyone claiming that they're just here to steal our jobs, take our children blah blah.I just don't understand how people can oppose immigration when we live in such a modern age-I mean we've all got different cultures why can't we just embrace it?

I'm just interested in what you look think, should we have less immigration, does it damage society?

[xxdrakeTxx]

personally i think this is earth were on it together we need to get along stop worrying about borders that only exist in our minds , embrace new clean technology and stop this i own this continent nonsense because incase you havent seen on tv mother nature owns this world not us . religion needs to stop being hateful along with some atheist who oppose religion . and stop the mentallity that everything positive is gonna destroy the kids

[ninja789]

It improves society so I am pro immigration

[Stronk Serb]

Depends what kind of immigrants. If they want to work and integrate into the society, you should welcome them with open arms. If they are thirld-worlders who want to do crime, live in ghetto-like quarters, refuse to work and pay taxes, but use the NHS and benefits, the money of hard-working Brits and immigrants, refuse to integrate into the society, you should return to their respective country and banish them for a few years. Also, to the Brits doing that, force them to get a job if tjhere are any openings.

[thatcountrykid]

I dont like the immigrants who come, say my culture offends them and demand i change it to fit them. Like i shouldnt have to learn spanish to get into a decent college.

[Vlerchan]

I just don't understand how people can oppose immigration when we live in such a modern age.
Immigration into a country results in the expansion of the supply of labour and consequently a drop in wage-levels for workers.

I'm fine with allowing unrestricted immigration at a European level but I tend to be not so happy with unskilled immigration coming from outside the EU - skilled immigrants from wherever are always welcome. I don't have a problem with multiculturalism since I believe that it adds to a country.

[Harry Smith]

Immigration into a country results in the expansion of the supply of labour and consequently a drop in wage-levels for workers.

I'm fine with allowing unrestricted immigration at a European level but I tend to be not so happy with unskilled immigration coming from outside the EU - skilled immigrants from wherever are always welcome. I don't have a problem with multiculturalism since I believe that it adds to a country.

I think that it can be largely off set by a raise in minimum wage and more enforcement of that. That keeps wages at a stable rate

[Vlerchan]

I think that it can be largely off set by a raise in minimum wage and more enforcement of that. That keeps wages at a stable rate

This would work if we assumed that everyone in the newly-inflated labour market could get access to a job. That wouldn't be the case. The reason that the wages would fall is because the unemployed people would now need to compete more (sell themselves for less) for the remaining jobs. Increasing the minimum wage won't help with that. It might even make it worse.

[Stronk Serb]

I think that it can be largely off set by a raise in minimum wage and more enforcement of that. That keeps wages at a stable rate

What do you think about the usual third-worlders who want to do crime, live in ghetto-like quarters, refuse to work and pay taxes, but use the NHS and benefits, the money of hard-working Brits and immigrants, refuse to integrate into the society etc.? How wpuld you deal with them? Not all third-world immigrants are like that. Some come here to study and work later and probably apply for citizenship, but you have those who just think they should live in their little crime enclave, harrassing people amd doing nothing good for the rest of the society, while using all the benefits to which for example a working Polish immigrant with university education would also be entitled to, like welfare (if he loses his job, or currently is not paid enough to make a living) and the NHS.

[Vlerchan]

What do you think about the usual third-worlders who want to do crime, live in ghetto-like quarters, refuse to work and pay taxes, but use the NHS and benefits, the money of hard-working Brits and immigrants, refuse to integrate into the society etc.?
Lol. See: bolded.

I also don't have a problem with immigrants refusing to integrate.

How wpuld you deal with them? Not all third-world immigrants are like that. Some come here to study and work later and probably apply for citizenship, but you have those who just think they should live in their little crime enclave, harrassing people amd doing nothing good for the rest of the society, while using all the benefits [...]
Lots of non-immigrants do this too.

How would you deal with the non-immigrants?

[Stronk Serb]

Lol. See: bolded.

I also don't have a problem with immigrants refusing to integrate.


Lots of non-immigrants do this too.

How would you deal with the non-immigrants?

I mean people who oppose regulations. For example go to mug people, sell drugs, be in the gangs, steal... but expect benefits and the NHS, even if they should be deported back or imprisoned for the shit they have done. For the non-immigrants, pass regulations so that they must apply for a new job as soon as there are any openings for their former job, or things they specialize at, like a graphics designer gets fired, he must apply for the same job if there are any openings in the vicinity. It would be illogical to go from London to Cardiff because there is a job opening, or if you just graduated as a nurse, you should apply for the job at a hospital or clinic in the vicinity. Same for immigrants who have a clear record, but lost their jobs or just graduated.

[Vlerchan]

I mean people who oppose regulations. For example go to mug people, sell drugs, be in the gangs, steal... but expect benefits and the NHS, even if they should be deported back or imprisoned for the shit they have done.
As long as you understand that lots of non-immigrants get involved in this, too.

For the non-immigrants, pass regulations so that they must apply for a new job as soon as there are any openings for their former job [..]
I'd suggest just making in mandatory for people on welfare to work in charities (by definition: non-profit) or government-backed projects.

For the record, I'm against making people on welfare work in for-profit organisations as is usually suggested.

Same for immigrants who have a clear record, but lost their jobs or just graduated.

Is there a reason why you're in favour of a separate set of rules for people born in your own country and people born in other countries?

[phuckphace]

I just don't understand how people can oppose immigration when we live in such a modern age...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty

you don't understand it because you aren't interested in finding out why. your sociology professor says that anyone who opposes unskilled immigration must be a virulent xenophobe with a bust of Goebbels sitting on the mantelpiece at home, and that's good enough for you.

I mean we've all got different cultures why can't we just embrace it?

http://i.imgur.com/r7Q80LP.gif

there is a clear difference between a multicultural world and a multicultural nation. societies have different cultures, value systems, religions, traditions, etc. which are often very different from one another. conflict and tension will always arise when two or more sufficiently different cultures are mixed, it's just the way humans are. for example, Iranians got sick of Americans importing our consumerist culture into Iran and seeing it widely adopted by many citizens, oftentimes running afoul of their religion. they put their foot down and said enough is enough. other nations have taken similar steps to eject Americanism from within their borders, which they have the right to do seeing as how it's their country and they have the right to protect their culture from foreign influence. it's really only in the West, where political correctness is rampant, that wanting to live in a culturally homogenous nation is considered "racist" and "xenophobic." again, it's only racist if white countries do it.

I'm sure one of the prefabricated rebuttals to this will be UGH WELL YOU'RE KINDA SORTA AN IMMIGRANT YOURSELF YOU RACIST KKK CROSS BURNING DOUCHE, EVER HEAR OF THE MAYFLOWER AND STUFF?! immigration in former times was characterized by intense pressure to integrate, and those who didn't faced ostracization and far fewer opportunities. multiculturalism has removed that almost entirely. hey if Indians are allowed to shit in the streets and dump garbage in the river in New Delhi then why not here? are you racist or something?

nevermind the economic impact, which as Vlerchan mentioned tends to increase the labor supply at the cost of wages. remedying this is hardly as simple as hiking the minimum wage, and in the context of this discussion is an especially absurd suggestion given that the whole purpose of pushing unskilled immigration is to suppress wages.

[Stronk Serb]

As long as you understand that lots of non-immigrants get involved in this, too.


I'd suggest just making in mandatory for people on welfare to work in charities (by definition: non-profit) or government-backed projects.

For the record, I'm against making people on welfare work in for-profit organisations as is usually suggested.



Is there a reason why you're in favour of a separate set of rules for people born in your own country and people born in other countries?

Not for separate rules, except one, sorry if I worded it wrong. The rule: immigrants who commited serious crimes should get reccomended for deportation, depending on the severity of the crime, and number of crimes commited. If you rob a store once, serve the time, if you do it for the tenth time, you get deported back. Also the non-profit idea sounds more appealing to me then the idea I mentioned. Should have thought of that before. Also, citizens should serve more time if they keep commiting severe crimes.

[Harry Smith]

This would work if we assumed that everyone in the newly-inflated labour market could get access to a job. That wouldn't be the case. The reason that the wages would fall is because the unemployed people would now need to compete more (sell themselves for less) for the remaining jobs. Increasing the minimum wage won't help with that. It might even make it worse.

I mean I think that's a major issue that people have with immigration is that they see it as anti-working class when I think immigration-as you expressed more in other points should be approached in the same way. We shouldn't have a them and yes culture-we need to ensure that all workers have a good wage and good working conditions

What do you think about the usual third-worlders who want to do crime, live in ghetto-like quarters, refuse to work and pay taxes, but use the NHS and benefits, the money of hard-working Brits and immigrants, refuse to integrate into the society etc.? How wpuld you deal with them? Not all third-world immigrants are like that. Some come here to study and work later and probably apply for citizenship, but you have those who just think they should live in their little crime enclave, harrassing people amd doing nothing good for the rest of the society, while using all the benefits to which for example a working Polish immigrant with university education would also be entitled to, like welfare (if he loses his job, or currently is not paid enough to make a living) and the NHS.

Eh, I'm also a bit skeptical of this argument. I mean in Britain for example an immigrant is 70% less likely to claim benefits and even the treasury say that they take out 9% of the benefit bill and put in 10% so public services wise I think that it's not an issue as they pay tax. For our NHS 40% of the people who work there are immigrants so it really relies on people coming into the country

I'd say the biggest problem is the 3rd generation immigrants we know have in Britain, who's parents and grand parents worked very hard when they entered but now after having 30 years of luxury they're not as motivated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty

you don't understand it because you aren't interested in finding out why. your sociology professor says that anyone who opposes unskilled immigration must be a virulent xenophobe with a bust of Goebbels sitting on the mantelpiece at home, and that's good enough for you.



image (http://i.imgur.com/r7Q80LP.gif)

there is a clear difference between a multicultural world and a multicultural nation. societies have different cultures, value systems, religions, traditions, etc. which are often very different from one another. conflict and tension will always arise when two or more sufficiently different cultures are mixed, it's just the way humans are. for example, Iranians got sick of Americans importing our consumerist culture into Iran and seeing it widely adopted by many citizens, oftentimes running afoul of their religion. they put their foot down and said enough is enough. other nations have taken similar steps to eject Americanism from within their borders, which they have the right to do seeing as how it's their country and they have the right to protect their culture from foreign influence. it's really only in the West, where political correctness is rampant, that wanting to live in a culturally homogenous nation is considered "racist" and "xenophobic." again, it's only racist if white countries do it.

I'm sure one of the prefabricated rebuttals to this will be UGH WELL YOU'RE KINDA SORTA AN IMMIGRANT YOURSELF YOU RACIST KKK CROSS BURNING DOUCHE, EVER HEAR OF THE MAYFLOWER AND STUFF?! immigration in former times was characterized by intense pressure to integrate, and those who didn't faced ostracization and far fewer opportunities. multiculturalism has removed that almost entirely. hey if Indians are allowed to shit in the streets and dump garbage in the river in New Delhi then why not here? are you racist or something?

nevermind the economic impact, which as Vlerchan mentioned tends to increase the labor supply at the cost of wages. remedying this is hardly as simple as hiking the minimum wage, and in the context of this discussion is an especially absurd suggestion given that the whole purpose of pushing unskilled immigration is to suppress wages.

Uhm not really. Nothing to do with my school education and nothing to do with the people who teach it.

With Iran I'd say that the biggest reason behind the revolution was the Shah himself, I admit that religion was a big part but it wasn't all to do with the fact that American values where spreading, it was largely due to the fact that they had virtually no form of democracy for about 40 years.

I never understand why you always bring up such violent stereotypes, I mean you mention about Indians in the past being forced to integrate but I think if you look at immigration for the last 200 years we have always opened people and their customs into our borders. Nearly every national treasure/institution we have is from immigration.

[Vlerchan]

We shouldn't have a them and yes culture-we need to ensure that all workers have a good wage and good working conditions
http://i.imgur.com/qMbnInq.gif

This doesn't necessarily involve a sudden openness to unrestrained immigration, however. There's much better way to elevate the world working-class than to simply open the borders to your country. As Phuckphace alluded to: in doing such you're literally playing into the hands of capitalists.

I support globally-based trade unions.

[Stronk Serb]

I mean I think that's a major issue that people have with immigration is that they see it as anti-working class when I think immigration-as you expressed more in other points should be approached in the same way. We shouldn't have a them and yes culture-we need to ensure that all workers have a good wage and good working conditions



Eh, I'm also a bit skeptical of this argument. I mean in Britain for example an immigrant is 70% less likely to claim benefits and even the treasury say that they take out 9% of the benefit bill and put in 10% so public services wise I think that it's not an issue as they pay tax. For our NHS 40% of the people who work there are immigrants so it really relies on people coming into the country

I'd say the biggest problem is the 3rd generation immigrants we know have in Britain, who's parents and grand parents worked very hard when they entered but now after having 30 years of luxury they're not as motivated

I'm not saying deny them entry, I'm saying deport the ones who do serious crimes and have the ones on benefits do charity work, as Vlerchan suggested. We have gypsies here who don't work, don't pay taxes who go to the doctor literally for free, but on the other hand, we have hard-working Chinese immigrants or Serbian citizens who must pay taxes for healthcare services. The state tried to help the gypsies by providing free housing, the majority of the gypsies sold the apartments or houses after the first winter. Either deport them back or have them do something productive. We already have enough leeches on our budget.

[Harry Smith]

I'm not saying deny them entry, I'm saying deport the ones who do serious crimes and have the ones on benefits do charity work, as Vlerchan suggested. We have gypsies here who don't work, don't pay taxes who go to the doctor literally for free, but on the other hand, we have hard-working Chinese immigrants or Serbian citizens who must pay taxes for healthcare services. The state tried to help the gypsies by providing free housing, the majority of the gypsies sold the apartments or houses after the first winter. Either deport them back or have them do something productive. We already have enough leeches on our budget.

Yeah I think crime's a serious problem, It's hard to measure it. I mean like if someone has been in a country for 30 years and then commits a crime I wouldn't want to throw them out, even if it's a serious problem.

image (http://i.imgur.com/qMbnInq.gif)

This doesn't necessarily involve a sudden openness to unrestrained immigration, however. There's much better way to elevate the world working-class than to simply open the borders to your country. As Phuckphace alluded to: in doing such you're literally playing into the hands of capitalists.

I support globally-based trade unions.

I know that the EU have a very basic version of that, where unions/businesses can join together but it's nothing that substantial. The problem with unions these days at least in Britain is that they are tied up by so many laws which stop them from breathing

[Stronk Serb]

Yeah I think crime's a serious problem, It's hard to measure it. I mean like if someone has been in a country for 30 years and then commits a crime I wouldn't want to throw them out, even if it's a serious problem.



I know that the EU have a very basic version of that, where unions/businesses can join together but it's nothing that substantial. The problem with unions these days at least in Britain is that they are tied up by so many laws which stop them from breathing

Maybe for repeated crimes, you rob a store once, but after the tenth time, bye bye. Also the time spent should be taken into account. The immigrant should get reccomended for deportation, but a special court should decide. It really isn't that black and white.

[Cygnus]

Given that I have received a good portion of discrimination when I'm in the US just for the fact that I speak spanish my opinions are in one side here, the income made thanks to illegal immigrants is considerable, and there is no reason to treat immigrants (wether they are legal or illegal) like shit, since they are also human beings just like you, dear reader, and me.

[Lovelife090994]

I am okay with law-abiding immigrants. America clearly has opposition to non-European immigrants.

[Babiole]

My mother and maternal grandparents are immigrants from Italy, and they're well-integrated in French society. I am actually pro-immigration. I don't think immigrants are any more likely to be criminals than anyone else.

[Ben97]

I'm pro-immigration to an extent, in particular 'skilled' workers. Furthermore 'unskilled' migrants are clearly not damaging our society (in the uk) and job market like so many think. Just look at the most recent unemployment rate released it's the lowest it's been in 5 years... However I do believe there should be some limit to the amount of people that are allowed into the country.

[OrKing]

People follow the wealth. In Britain's case: If you're going to be the historical 'mother' of fifty two nations and take their wealth (usually forcefully) than don't be surprised when the people of those lands either follow the wealth or come home to what they were told was their mother country. Why were people told they were people of the British Commonwealth and then treated the way they were when they came to fucking Britain? It's bullshit. Personally I hate any mention of immigration, especially in the media. I personally think it's simply there for yet another reinforcement in the whole conquer and divide/divide and conquer idea. Seemingly the most dominant philosophy of all time is getting poor people to fight with one another; it's an integral part of the world in the way it is. If we didn't fight each other we'd be in a much, much more powerful position and be fully capable of bargaining for better positions in society. Instead you have newspaper's publishing bullshit about a new wave of "dangerous" immigrants and working class 'native' morons treating the new people with the same mindless hatred, distrust and general racism that a lot of their own parents or grandparents had to suffer through. It's yet another thing employed by power to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. It's basically just those in power convincing us that we're the ones fighting among ourselves, we are the problem so don't look at them, they're just the kind leaders.

This thread got me pissed off. My bad.

[phuckphace]

Eh, I'm also a bit skeptical of this argument. I mean in Britain for example an immigrant is 70% less likely to claim benefits and even the treasury say that they take out 9% of the benefit bill and put in 10% so public services wise I think that it's not an issue as they pay tax.

that's an interesting statistic, it's almost like immigrants took a lot of the jobs forcing more native Brits to go on the dole.

For our NHS 40% of the people who work there are immigrants so it really relies on people coming into the country

and why do you think that is? answer: the Thatcher-ized NHS wants their cheap labor. like I've said 9001 times, that's the actual end goal of unskilled immigration, regardless of whatever glib humanitarianism it comes wrapped in. your dire implication that the NHS would have to shut down if the immigrants were kicked out is transparently false, the only thing that would happen would be more job openings for native Brits. or was the NHS during the Attlee/Churchill/Macmillan era full of Somalians and other recent arrivals from the *stans?

I'd say the biggest problem is the 3rd generation immigrants we know have in Britain, who's parents and grand parents worked very hard when they entered but now after having 30 years of luxury they're not as motivated

if by "not as motivated" you mean "creating crime-ridden ethnic exclaves within Britain" then I'd say you're entirely right here.

With Iran I'd say that the biggest reason behind the revolution was the Shah himself, I admit that religion was a big part but it wasn't all to do with the fact that American values where spreading, it was largely due to the fact that they had virtually no form of democracy for about 40 years.

and the Shah was America's lapdog and his regime was partially instrumental in allowing the aforementioned corrupting American influence to creep in. the fact that he was also the head of your typical police state that suppressed political opponents was just icing on the turd cake. the Ayatollah didn't overthrow the Shah by himself, of course.

I never understand why you always bring up such violent stereotypes

you mean why do I point out uncomfortable truths that you would prefer to ignore per your hopelessly idealistic and clueless ideology? it's a dirty job but somebody's gotta do it.

People follow the wealth. In Britain's case: If you're going to be the historical 'mother' of fifty two nations and take their wealth (usually forcefully) than don't be surprised when the people of those lands either follow the wealth or come home to what they were told was their mother country. Why were people told they were people of the British Commonwealth and then treated the way they were when they came to fucking Britain? It's bullshit.

whiteguilt.txt

[Harry Smith]

that's an interesting statistic, it's almost like immigrants took a lot of the jobs forcing more native Brits to go on the dole.

and why do you think that is? answer: the Thatcher-ized NHS wants their cheap labor. like I've said 9001 times, that's the actual end goal of unskilled immigration, regardless of whatever glib humanitarianism it comes wrapped in. your dire implication that the NHS would have to shut down if the immigrants were kicked out is transparently false, the only thing that would happen would be more job openings for native Brits. or was the NHS during the Attlee/Churchill/Macmillan era full of Somalians and other recent arrivals from the *stans?

Funnily enough the NHS has always relied on foreign labour under the PM's you listed, the labour government in 1949 send people out to the Caribbean and 10,000 nurses came over here to work. So yeah it's always relied on foreign labour because you know Britain was kinda broken after the war. And no it's not white guilt-it's the best justice. Good to see you skip over the outlandish profits made by Britain directly off foreign countries in the 1800's

[OrKing]

whiteguilt.txt

Please explain.

[ArcticEagle]

Speaking for the U.S.
I'm all for immigration as long as its legal and laws are obeyed.
Immigration is what built the U.S. and we have all the space in the country as long as they don't locate to major U.S. cities which are over crowded as is.

[phuckphace]

Please explain.

"we deserve to get flooded with foreigners because of colonialism/slavery/etc." is a staple of white guilt propaganda. no self-respecting person believes that they hold any measure of blame for injustices committed in the past long before they were ever born. this is actually one of the main reasons I ditched cosmopolitan leftism after some time, since as a white guy I'm apparently obligated to flog myself daily while wearing an iron neck collar to atone for my participation in the slave trade.

if lefties would just stick to smoking weed and sharing Ghandi-esque platitudes about world peace, I'd be inclined to consider them harmless. but a good deal of that movement seems largely preoccupied with incessant bitching about how evil white people are. with the possible exception of anarcho-capitalists, self-loathing lefties are the worst.

[Harry Smith]

"we deserve to get flooded with foreigners because of colonialism/slavery/etc." is a staple of white guilt propaganda. no self-respecting person believes that they hold any measure of blame for injustices committed in the past long before they were ever born. this is actually one of the main reasons I ditched cosmopolitan leftism after some time, since as a white guy I'm apparently obligated to flog myself daily while wearing an iron neck collar to atone for my participation in the slave trade.

if lefties would just stick to smoking weed and sharing Ghandi-esque platitudes about world peace, I'd be inclined to consider them harmless. but a good deal of that movement seems largely preoccupied with incessant bitching about how evil white people are. with the possible exception of anarcho-capitalists, self-loathing lefties are the worst.

On the flip side of the coin are people who hold the view that because you have white skin your still automatically better, I don't want another Ian Smith

[Vlerchan]

It sure is great being one of the few historically-oppressed white ethnic groups.

Though, I think you're exaggerating the 'great deal' of self-loathing lefties.

If we didn't fight each other we'd be in a much, much more powerful position and be fully capable of bargaining for better positions in society. Instead you have newspaper's publishing bullshit about a new wave of "dangerous" immigrants and working class 'native' morons treating the new people with the same mindless hatred, distrust and general racism that a lot of their own parents or grandparents had to suffer through. It's yet another thing employed by power to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. It's basically just those in power convincing us that we're the ones fighting among ourselves, we are the problem so don't look at them, they're just the kind leaders.
I agree with this 100% by the way.

It's what I was trying to get across in my 'an injury to one is an injury to all' picture: a divided working class is a divided working class and such divisions weaken our position of which to bargain from. I'm not in favour of unrestrained immigration because unrestrained immigration is a demonstrably bad idea, but casting foreign nationals off as leeches and criminals, etc. as well as claiming that they only want to come to our country to steal our wealth and form their little 'crime-ridden ethnic exclaves' - which, for the record, I've missed in Ireland - is just counter-productive.

[phuckphace]

On the flip side of the coin are people who hold the view that because you have white skin your still automatically better, I don't want another Ian Smith

yes Harry, we know. only white people have superiority complexes, La Raza, Black Panthers don't get a mention because it doesn't fit with the narrative of your broken ideology.

I read up on Smith and from what I can tell he was a respectable and level-headed leader who presided over a period of relative prosperity. the most devastating critique his detractors can come up with is the usual shrill "RACIST" canard. :rolleyes: meanwhile modern Zimbabwe, freed from evil white oppression must surely still be a model of success for the rest of Africa?

http://i.imgur.com/92G6rSK.jpg

...oh.

[Stronk Serb]

"we deserve to get flooded with foreigners because of colonialism/slavery/etc." is a staple of white guilt propaganda. no self-respecting person believes that they hold any measure of blame for injustices committed in the past long before they were ever born. this is actually one of the main reasons I ditched cosmopolitan leftism after some time, since as a white guy I'm apparently obligated to flog myself daily while wearing an iron neck collar to atone for my participation in the slave trade.

if lefties would just stick to smoking weed and sharing Ghandi-esque platitudes about world peace, I'd be inclined to consider them harmless. but a good deal of that movement seems largely preoccupied with incessant bitching about how evil white people are. with the possible exception of anarcho-capitalists, self-loathing lefties are the worst.

The Serbs were an oppressed white ethnicity, and so were the Croats and Bosniaks. What did we get from the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary and their successor states? Nothing. The Germams and the Americams took the part of the bullying. The Yugoslav Civil War was orchestrated by the Americans.

[Gamma Male]

No, I don't. These European white devils need to take their magic canoes and diseases and get the fuck off our land.
RED POWER!

Lol. Jk. I'm only an 1/8 Cherokee so they'd probably kick me out too.

[Harry Smith]

yes Harry, we know. only white people have superiority complexes, La Raza, Black Panthers don't get a mention because it doesn't fit with the narrative of your broken ideology.

I read up on Smith and from what I can tell he was a respectable and level-headed leader who presided over a period of relative prosperity. the most devastating critique his detractors can come up with is the usual shrill "RACIST" canard. :rolleyes: meanwhile modern Zimbabwe, freed from evil white oppression must surely still be a model of success for the rest of Africa?

image (http://i.imgur.com/92G6rSK.jpg)

...oh.

I never mentioned mugabe, this is one the of the main problems with your argument is that you justify pretty weak arguments by claiming 'oh they're just as bad', I'll happily admit that Mugabe is terrible and the west got it wrong, but that doesn't justify what Smith did. Did you see the counter insurgency carried out by his forces?

I also never said the problem is exclusive to white people, I just don't use that as a reserve excuse as you do. You almost seem to revel in joy at far right monitory rule because the Africans did it as well. As I said above you can't justify your entire argument on the idea that the other side did it first.

There's a consistent pattern of how the Britain really fucked up in Africa since about the 1800's,but you refuse to accept that right?

[Vlerchan]

yes Harry, we know. only white people have superiority complexes, La Raza, Black Panthers don't get a mention because it doesn't fit with the narrative of your broken ideology.
I presumed that the Black Panthers didn't get a mention because they weren't a supremacist group and the NCLR because they similarly aren't a supremacist group. I wouldn't even call the NCLR a nationalist group because it's not that either. I'm not saying that there isn't non-white supremacist groups here - the New Black Panthers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party) who are entirely independent to the original Black Panthers are an example of such - but rather that these are awful examples.

The reason that white supremacists groups are highlighted more-so is because white supremacism at a single time has been both a) more widespread and b) actually held a degree of power and influence. That's what separates it from supremacist movements as driven by other ethno-groups.

EDIT:

I was reading some reports documenting the correlation between increased levels of inward migration and wage-levels in the short-term and apparently steep drops in the wage levels is far from the reality: the reality is actually that per 1% increase in the working-age population as brought on by increased inward migration there's between a 0.3% and 0.6% decrease in wage levels. That's not big [1] (http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/19366/10.1007_s10109-010-0111-y.pdf;jsessionid=ECAF557CB0DC1AD907EC714F1961AFFD?sequence=1) [2] (http://www.waikato.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/74172/dp-67.pdf) [3] (http://personal.lse.ac.uk/manacorm/manacorda_manning_wadsworth.pdf). These only document the short-term where markets are quite inelastic i.e., not all that susceptible to change - and we can't claim that the correlation is causation given that people usually immigrate to areas that have high levels of economic growth and consequently high levels of labour demand (read: increasing wage levels) but it's interesting nonetheless and certainly rains on my earlier claims that immigration results in deathly drops in wage levels.

I've no idea how immigration affects wage-levels in the long-term because I've been having a difficult time finding reports and analysis.

EDIT2:

Actually, the more I think about it the more I realise that the statistics I linked are meaningless as a result of the faults in the analysis that I outlined thereafter.