Ruben Navarette´s latest column: According to the 2000 census, Iowa is about 94 percent white, 3 percent Hispanic, 2 percent black and 1 percent Asian. That is not exactly a majority-minority state in the offing. And yet, we're told the outcome of the Iowa caucuses – especially on the Republican side – could come down to the candidates' views on immigration. ...some of them give the impression that Mexican immigrants are launching a full-scale invasion of Iowa, soaking up public benefits, subverting the culture and undermining the English language. They never acknowledge that immigrants are making their way to the heartland because someone there is offering them jobs, profiting from their labor and pumping tax dollars into the local economy to the benefit of everyone – even the complainers.
Someone needs to tell that to the retiree who grilled Fred Thompson at a gathering at the Music Man Square museum in Mason City. Concerned that Mexicans were plotting to retake the Southwest and insisting that illegal immigrants were a burden to taxpayers, the woman finally quit beating around the bush and got around to what really bothered her. Surprise: It's the changing culture, and specifically how – even in Iowa – the Spanish language pops up at the most inopportune moments. In what was obviously a gross exaggeration, the questioner claimed that, when Iowans call the power company, “everything is in Spanish” and that she finds it all “sickening.”
You want sickening? Consider Thompson's lily livered response. “You are so, so right,” he told the retiree. He even suggested that English be the national language. Instead of providing leadership by telling the woman to knock off the nativist lingo and acknowledge that illegal immigration is a self-inflicted wound, Thompson opted to pander. Just like everyone else. Doesn't any of this immigration narrative sound familiar to native Iowans? It should. Nearly 100 years ago, another ethnic group found itself on the cultural skillet in that state. Its members had last names such as “Schultz” or “Braun” or “Kalb.”
As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dale Maharidge points out in his insightful book, “Denison, Iowa,” the first German immigrants arrived in Iowa shortly after it became a state in 1846. For several decades, they built “Germantowns,” created German schools and churches, and founded German brotherhood associations. And, about this, no one seemed to mind much. But then the United States entered World War I in 1917. And an anti-German crusade began. It may have been cloaked in concerns over the war, but it quickly focused on the German language, German newspapers and German culture. In Denison, which is now a town of about 8,000 people, German-Americans were beaten and piles of German books were set afire. English-only laws were passed. Critics will reject the comparison and point out the obvious: that many of the Latino immigrants now streaming into Iowa are coming illegally and that the Germans came legally. That's true. German immigrants who helped settle Iowa in the late 1800s did come legally. There was no way to come illegally until the 1920s. And yet it made little difference. They were still mistreated. That's because the issue was never legality. It was the same thing that fuels the discussion today: fear of change.
It all makes for an ugly chapter in history that Iowans would be wise not to repeat.
Posts
43 comments:
All countries are "nativist" in nature and there is nothing wrong with it. It just means their citizens what to retain it's natural culture, ethnic makeup and language. I wonder why Navarette doesn't object to Mexico's mono-culutural makeup and having an official language? I wonder why he doesn't object to China and the Chinese being a mono-cultural society and having an official language? Why is it alright for Hispanics to remain the majority in their countries and retain their culture and language and not be called vile names for it but White Americans are? How many countries do Hispanics need to become the majority in, to satisfy their lust for power and dominance? Why is it considered racist for Whites to want to retain their majority stance in their own country? Notice how he keeps using the word "immigrant" when the subject is and should be illegal aliens? What a liar!
These employers offering illegals jobs have no legal right to do that nor do the illegals have the right to take them. So I guess that must mean the bank robber is guilty but his accomplice driving the get-a-away car is not?
It is mostly second and third generation chicanos that are of the reconquista mindset. The illegals are just helping their little Aztlan dream come true in numbers.
Naverette, as usual convolutes what an ‘Immigrant’ is. By definition, ‘immigrant’ means the following: a person who comes to settle in a country. Naverette is confusing that with the definition of ‘emigrant’: a person who leaves a country in order to settle in another country. The ‘immigrants’ of today are not leaving their country permanently to come here and settle in this country as the Germans, Italians, etc, of the past did. They are coming here today, ‘immigrating’, to settle here and work in order to send monies back to enlarge there homes, purchase the TV’s and video games for their children, and to purchase items that increase there social class status. They have the intent of returning from whence they came eventually. Now that the economy is decreasing and laws are being enforced, they are beginning to leave on their own and telling others that it’s not worth coming here now, there are no jobs.
There sense of entitlements to rights is the most damaging to their cause. They gave up there rights by being in this country without authorization, therefore they aren’t even entitled to obtaining privileges, without the use of fake/stolen/forged documentation. Naverette also fails to mention that the USA is a Sovereign Nation with borders, and that there are numerous visas that can be obtained/applied for if needed workers are required, however the employers are the ones that prefer the cheap labor and exploitation of these people for their own profit. Illegal immigrants can’t understand that it’s for their own good that these laws and visas are in place, to protect them from the abuse and exploitation of unscrupulous employers. There mentality, on the other hand, is they work for cheap here because one week’s pay here is one months pay there. The hourly wage rate for employees is such a large difference between the two countries that they are blinded with their own greed and take care of their families not caring that it may disrupt the lives or take from the families that are in this country trying to survive. So my question is, what makes there lives and families more important then the lives and families here?
Gosh Pat, You really are one dimensional. We are not mono cultural in our USA. Neither is Mexico. Examples:
1. Northeastern culture: When I lived in MA a few years back, it was like a shock to the system and it takes a while to become accustomed to the native culture. They speak differently. Loud, Choppy and barking. Its like they are mad and angry all the time, but they are not. That is how they talk. Actually when you become accustomed to the environment, they are very sweet and caring. They drive like maniacs and have very weird practices. Examples: When at a street light, they allow the on coming trafic to turn left in front of you. When I didn´t do this, they honk at you until you turn. Another example: When driving in Boston, people drive close, fast and drive in and out of the breakdown lane (shoulder) in order to pass. This was a highway. OMG, I was so shocked and nervous driving in Boston that I decided not to drive there unless absolutely necessary.
Michigan and Indiana are similar in culture. They are Liberal and open to people. They talk in twangs and are polite and quiet. They are hearty people. Different foods than Northeast.
Detroit and Chicago are different than rural Michigan and Indiana. Fast talk, brisk, somewhat rude. Very multi cultural. Little ethnic pockets everywhere, like Germantown, Polishtown, Chinatown, various South American or Puerto Rican enclaves.
Missouri is totally different. It is southern without being southern. They speak with long country drawls. It is odd because the inner city (like KC) is primarily African American, and white flight is obvious in the suburbs. In many areas, minorities are almost non existent. In the suburbs, if you are a minority, it is like you are a martian. They watch every move you make.
California areas I visited (and lived in for 1 year) were very nice. For vacation, I went to San Diego and another trip to Orange County. Very touristy and rich areas. I lived with my sister in the Palm Desert area. Very nice. Very multi cultural with mixture of White and Hispanic population. Many Asians. Nice churches and shopping centers. Later she moved to San Bernardino. Also very nice, primarily Hispanic and multi cultural.
My favorite place is Texas, where I live now. DFW and SA are very multi cultural. Everywhere you go there are people of every ethnicity. All very friendly. If I were to guess, I would say about 35% White, 35% Hispanic, 10% African American, 10% Asian, 10% Other.
In Texas, the people are friendly, we talk southern (Yáll), we eat all kinds of Mexican, American, Chinese foods. This is the normal fare at most restaraunts around here. We have many churches of every type. I drive by one about a mile from my house and the name of the church is written in Vietnamese letters.
"It was the same thing that fuels the discussion today: fear of change."
No, the author errs in making that statement. As he points out everything was fine until 1917 when Americans were being killed by Germans in the trenches of WW I. At that point the treatment of Germans represented the same phenomenon as the internment of Japanese during WW II. It had little to do with fear of change. However, such fears are not irrational. If my prediction of Mexico Norte comes true, we will be able to say in retrospect that our fear of that happening was completely rational, especially if Mexico Norte exhibits the same characteristics of the homeland: poverty, joblessness, disease, control by oligarchs, and crime like we have never seen. Sounds like a legitimate fear. Minor changes like those effected by the Germans, as they assimilated to the English-speaking culture, would not be a cause for alarm except in war time. But wholesale signage in Spanish, multi-lingual ballots, bi-lingual instruction, and separatist tendencies are. Doesn't anyone see the difference?
Navarrette treats "nativism" as though it is a dirty word. As Pat pointed out, "All countries are "nativist" in nature and there is nothing wrong with it."
"In the suburbs, if you are a minority, it is like you are a martian. They watch every move you make."
And for good reason given the crime statistics of minorities. I am reminded of a friend who was considering moving to Las Cruces, New Mexico but decided against it because it was "too close to El Paso". I understand that because of its proximity to the border, car and other things are stolen in the middle of the night as illegals move through the area heading into Mexico Norte.
Ulty, you are confusing poverty with immigration. Your example looks more like urban neighborhood, anytown USA. (e.g. Downtown Denver, KC, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, etc. etc. etc.
It doesn´t look like my multicultural neighborhood.
Ulty´s quote: poverty, joblessness, disease, control by oligarchs, and crime like we have never seen.
Actually, the suburban KC town I was talking about (where they look at minorities like martians) was one of the homes of the KKK.
dee, both Mexico and the USA have a dominant and identifying culture and language and that is what I meant. I am not saying there aren't other cultures living in Mexico or the USA. But Mexico is dominantly Hispanic culturally and the USA is dominantly of the anglo culture. Please, I don't want to start this worn out old argument with you yet again. What I have stated is the truth. Many if not most other countries have a dominant culture/ethnic makeup and language too. There is nothing wrong with it.
My question was why is it ok for HIspanics to retain their dominance in their countries or Asians to retain their dominant culture in China, Japan, etc. but it is not alright for White Anglos to retain their culture, language and dominance in the U.S without being called navists, xenophobes and racists?
Let's put it another way, dee. The USA is dominantly anglo-white "racially". In anglo cultures there are some variances but they are not Hispanic culturally in any way. Mexico's dominant "racial" makeup is that of the Mestizo. Do you get it now?
We have every right to retain our racial dominance in this country as does Mexico, Japan, China have the right to retain theirs in their countries.
the Spanish language pops up at the most inopportune moments. In what was obviously a gross exaggeration, the questioner claimed that, when Iowans call the power company, “everything is in Spanish” and that she finds it all “sickening.”
That comment reminded me of MATT. Most of the people there had an issue with foreign workers not because of their impact on domestic labor, but because they subjected their tender ears Spanish (which they invariably though people spoke for the sole purpose of speaking behind their backs).
Maybe that lady in Iowa was our Tweety.
Pat, Your view that the US is primarily White Anglo (Northern European) vs what you call Mexican (Mestizo) = Brown is the whole issue.
You have made this a color (race) issue. I applaud you for your honesty.
Our great USA is not going to stay White Anglo majority for long. We are evolving/advancing to a new multi cultural society. Not mestizo. Not white. A New American who culturally is part English, Irish, Mexican, Native American, African American, and Asian, much like my family.
I think that the reason that Non-Hispanic citizens object to hearing Spanish all the time now is because it makes one aware just how far down the road this invsion has gone now. Hispanic citizens for the most part can speak English. It is mainly the illegals who do not. It's kind of like having the invasion rubbed in your face. I fully understand it.
dee, no it isn't a skin color issue in a negative sense. All I did was state the facts. Are you denying that White (race) Anglos are the majority in this country along with the English language? Are you living under a rock.
Mexico is comprised dominantly of Mestizos (race). Again just a fact. Don't start your race card BS again! Facts are not racist.
We can retain what this country has been since it's founding, if we just stop this illegal invasion from mostly one ethnic group. Immigration was meant to encompasse many ethnic groups so that they assimilated into the main culture and society rather than overtaking it. If Whites get displace in their own country it will be due directly to an illegal invasion. Nothing natural or desirabable about that!
Pat, I live in TX. Read what wiki says about majority minority states:
Four states are majority-minority states: Hawaii (which has long been such a state, and is the only state that has never had a white majority) and more recently, New Mexico, California, and Texas[1] have entered the category, with more ethnic minorities, and in August 2006 the United States Census reported that the percentage of non-Hispanic white residents had fallen below 60 percent in Maryland, Georgia and Nevada.[2] The District of Columbia has long had a majority African American population. All major United States territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Marianas Islands, and American Samoa) are majority-minority areas.
"He even suggested that English be the national language."
I find it hard to fault that statement. Ruben is up in the night again.
"It doesn´t look like my multicultural neighborhood.
Ulty´s quote: poverty, joblessness, disease, control by oligarchs, and crime like we have never seen."
That was my prediction for the future in America. If that is the way it is in Mexico Sud, why would one expect anything different in Mexico Norte? Give it time my friend and you will see to your disgust that I was right. If I'm not I would be prepared to eat a large helping of crow. Not very likely.
"Hawaii (which has long been such a state, and is the only state that has never had a white majority)"
There is a heavy influence of over-achieving Asians, especially Chinese and Japanese, which probably accounts for its status in the firmament.
California is teetering on bankruptcy and is a state becoming Mexifornia. It won't be too long before we will be able to discern the disease, poverty, crime, Mexican-style oligarchy, and jobless trends in the Golden State.
Let's define Mexicans as "white" since they have some Spanish blood. Then we can get to the essence of the problem, their illegality without having to worry about the racist/nativist argument.
This from the World Fact Book on the ethnic/racial makeup of the U.S.
If these stats change it will be directly due to illegal immigration!
Whoops forgot to post the link.
Ethnic groups:
white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.)
note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)
If there are 40 million Hispanics in this country legally?, then Ango-Whites are over 200 million. As I said, this country has been dominantely racially and culturally Anglo-White since it's founding. The only thing that will change it is illegal immigration from Hispanic countries.
Ulty, I always find it interesting that you and yours always perceive Asians at a higher intelligence tier than Hispanics and even Whites Anglos. As an IT project and program manager, I have had IT teams (Whites and various minority ethnicities) work for me. You give Asians far too much credit. They and ALL ethnicities are as good as the training they are provided, then as good as the standards set and accountabilities held to standard. Your assumptions make you appear foolish!
Ulty´s quote: There is a heavy influence of over-achieving Asians, especially Chinese and Japanese, which probably accounts for its status in the firmament.
Poor Naverette states:
"There was no way to come illegally until the 1920s."
He can't even do his research and get correct information. Later, the U.S. Immigration Act of 1891 provided for deportation of aliens living unlawfully in the country.
Liquid, Ruben was referring to Immigration laws not being as stringent as they later became. Here is a timeline.
Significant U.S. Immigration Legislation and Policies include:
1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790. First rules for citizenship. This Act said, “any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States.”
1875: Supreme Court ruled US Immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government.
1882: The Chinese Exclusion Act: This act suspended Chinese immigration, a ban that lasted over 60 years.
1891: The Federal Government began Immigration processes. (Inspecting, Admitting, Rejecting)
1892 - 1954: Ellis Island - 12 million immigrants, were inspected by the US Bureau of Immigration (Immigration and Naturalization Service)
1907: The US Immigration Act of 1907 – reorganizes the states bordering Mexico (AZ, NM and parts of TX) to stem the flow of Latin American immigrants.
1917: Immigration Act of 1917 – exclusions including but not limited to, “idiots,” “feeble-minded persons,” “epileptics,” “insane persons,” alcoholics, “professional beggars,” all persons “mentally or physically defective,” polygamists, anarchists, illiterates over 16 and (most controversial aspect) an “Asiatic Barred Zone,” a region that included much of eastern Asia and the Pacific Islands from which people could not immigrate. Previously, only the Chinese had been excluded from admission to the country.
1924: Immigration Act of 1924 – limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, according to the Census of 1890. It excluded immigration to the US of Asians. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s, as well as East Asians and Asian Indians, who were prohibited from immigrating entirely. It set no limits on immigration from Latin America.
Timeline continues:
1931 – 1934: Mexican Repatriation: forced migration mainly taking place between 1931 and 1934, when over 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans, more than one third of the United States Mexican population, were deported or "voluntarily repatriated" to Mexico. Approximately 60% of the people deported were children who were born in America and others who, while of Mexican descent, were legal citizens. Many of these people returned to the United States when the country experienced labor shortages during World War II.
1952: Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952: established a preference system which selected which ethnic groups were desirable immigrants and placed great importance on labor qualifications. The INA defined three types of immigrants: 1. relatives of US citizens who were exempt from quotas and who were to be admitted without restrictions; 2. average immigrants whose numbers were not supposed to exceed 270,000 per year; 3. refugees.
1954: Operation Wetback: project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about 1.2 million illegal immigrants from the southwestern United States, with a focus on Mexican nationals. 1,075 Border Patrol agents along with state and local police agencies to mount an aggressive crackdown, going as far as police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics. In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens. The agents used a wide brush in their criteria for interrogating potential aliens. They adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Around 488,000 people fled the country for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000-700,000 people had left Texas voluntarily. To discourage re-entry, buses and trains took many people deep within Mexico before being set free. Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (900 kilometers) south.
He specifically stated "There was no way to come illegally until the 1920s." Which is incorrect.
Legislation from 1790 - 1900
Noting the Immigration Act of 1924- "Immigration from any one country was limited to 2% of the number already living in the U.S." Now that makes sense. Fair quotas for ALL countries. That is what is unfair today and that is the percentage of illegal aliens entering our country from mostly one country and ethnic group.
Note that in the last sentence it said that their were no limits on immigration from Latin American countries. I wonder why that was? It seems to be in direct conflict with the above ruling. I have never heard dee brag about that one. She just whines about our immigration laws being unfair to Mexicans/Hispanics instead.
Pat, I´ve cited the Immigration Act of 1924 many times. It was this act that severely restricted immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe and Asian countries while keeping the Latin southern borders wide open. They intiated many of the Bracero programs at this time and brought in countless workers. I cite this act to explain why it has been the American Immigration laws themselves and various work programs that have brought us to our current state.
And Pat, it is NOT called whining. It is called discussing and recalling history.
I don't think that any group of immigrants should have been given preference or should have been discriminated against, past or present. Just because Latin Americans were given preference in the past doesn't justify them violating our immigration laws today. That is one of the reasons that I think we need to have this huge volume of Latin Americans who came here illegally deported and start with fair quotas from several countries. It is the fair thing to do. This can be achieved by mandating that the e-verify system be used by employers for those already on their payroll and any future hires. The illegals will self deport over a period of 4 years and therefore it won't impact our economy as much. We can during that 4 year period insist that employers hire Americans at a fair wage and where there is a void we can pull from those immigrants who are waiting in line or waiting to come back.
Right -
we are in the final stretch -
the success of Arizona law means that many other states will roll out similar laws.
Self deportation will accelerate. The illegals are going to exit.
Once this is clear to all, we can have the debate we need to have, which is how much legal immigration do we want on an ongoing basis. From what countries do we want this immigration. What skills and education level do we want.
We can figure this out together
Anon,
I do agree with you in one regard. We do need to use Arizona as a Test site. How AZ goes, so goes the nation. If they go out of business, then so will the nation. If they are a success in their stringent laws and your vision is accomplished, so goes the nation.
I have said this from the beginning. AZ a test site. As AZ goes, so goes the nation!
Tests should never be conducted over whether or not this country should be operating under illegality. It is against everything this country stands for. By making the employers use the e-verify system we will have 4 years to replace any illegal aliens on their payroll with citizens and the economy will have a softer landing. Whatever void there may be we can pull from immigrants waiting to come here. I am for a smaller economy to fit a smaller population anyway and the reasons have been discussed by myself and Ultima over and over. You have your priorities all screwed up, dee.
Look, there are two competing visions here.
I don't want to say that Patriot agrees with Vdare - i don't know for sure exactly what Patriot thinks and do NOT want to put words in his mouth.
But if you read Vdare, you see that some people there see the US as a nation founded on anglo american values. Those people want the US to NOT have massive immigration from Mexico because they feel massive immigration from mexico will change the culture. I don't disparage these folks, they are honest, and they have a point - they can present this point to the US population and see how many agree with them.
If you read the web sites of the "multiculturists" their vision is for massive immigration to the US of people with different cultures than anglo saxon culture. They like the idea of the US getting less anglo saxon and more diverse. I don't want to disparage these fine folks either.
But let me be blunt - I don't think that either of these two groups can win a battle for the hearts and minds of 300 million people in America.
The vast bulk of the people in america will make their decision on the basis of the BREAD AND BUTTER ISSUES.
What america wants to know is, when the undocumented deport themselves, what happens to the schools - are the schools safer and better? What happens to the hospitals - are the hospitals better? And most importantly, what happens to the cost of living and what happens to wages?
In Arizona, people are going to look at the impact on their pocketbook and decide.
If the restaurant workers and construction workers in arizona start making lots more money, and start getting treated better by their bosses, and this gets lots of publicity, this will make lots of people want to follow the Arizona example.
I respect all sides here but i think that philosophy won't play much of a part.
anon, I think I have made my position pretty clear in here and I have no idea what V-Dare thinks as I don't even go into their website.
Of course this country was founded on anglo values and has been majority anglo-white since it's founding. Just like Mexico and other Hispanic countries and just about every other country on this plantet we want to retain this country's dominant culture and identity. I see nothing wrong with that. Yet it is Hispanics who are bitching about America remaining dominantly anglo. Don't you see the hypocricy in that? Why would any country want their natural identity changed through illegal immigration? There is nothing natural about that.
Just how much more diverse do we need to get and still be able to retain our natural identity? Has history shown that an excessive amount of diversity within a country makes for a cohesive society? I think not.
What you fail to realize anon is that those you speak about that want more diveristy are lying. What they really want is for THEIR culture to become the dominant one. Where is the diversity in that? It is only replacing our culture with theirs. Wake up anon, and accept the truth about the other side of the issue.
This country will be a lot better off without illegal aliens in our midst. Our economy will adapt and we will return to a nation of laws and legal immigration in controlled numbers.
Patriot,
There are three groups that are strongly in favor of mass immigration to the us. First, people with an economic interest like business owners. Second, ethnic groups that actually want to increase their own power in america, like la raza.
There is another group - the elites that just like a multi cultural & politically correct society. I mean, do a survey in hollywood, or in the faculty lounge of the ivy league schools. There are plenty of people that just want to see lots of diversity. For example, if you do a survey of white gay ivy league educated people who work in media or advertising, they are overwhelmingly in favor of high immigration. I mean they don't make money from the immigrants, and in fact new immigrants are much more likely to perpetrate anti gay violence than the anglo saxon us citizens. But there is some overwhelming drive to make the US more visibly diverse -
What i am saying is, rational or not, there is a group of people that doesn't benefit in any way from massive immigration that is strongly in favor of it.
You have to see that the public schools and media push a message that is so strongly pro immigration that many or perhaps most of the elite, even members of the elite that are hurt by immigration, are still in favor of it.
Let me give you a great example - in Amsterdam, the immigrants are violently attacking gays - in fact it is almost unheard of for a native born christian citizen of amsterdam to violently attack gays, and just about all the violence against gays comes from immigrants. However, despite this, the gay leadership is in favor of immigration since that is the politically correct view.
In Malmo Sweden there is an epidemic of rape perpetrated by new immigrants - Rapes are perpetrated by immigrants at four times the rate that native born swedes perpetrate rapes. However the feminist leadership in Sweden is aggressively calling for more immigration.
In the case of both feminists and gays, the politically correct nature of immigration trumps all other aspects.
Patriot, please do **not** assume that the elites will act in their own self interest.
anon, do you have proof of your assertions that many Americans (even white ones) want MORE diversity in this country up to and including the genocide of the white race in this country? You are really in outer space here.
Schools? They are one of if not the biggest problems with their push for diversity. They have brainswashed our children with their PC crap!
PC and greed is what will take this counry down. Do you want to go down with it or fight for your country?
Patriot - you should be angry. But don't shoot the messenger.
The fact is that the native population of europe have decided to commit suicide. They have decided not to have children, and they have taken other actions that will result in the disappearance of their culture
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html
Patriot, you assume that the majority group in the US has the spine and willpower to not follow their cousins in Europe down the toilet.
I am simply saying that if you look at how soft and lazy most of the majority in the US are, the jury is still out.
Patriot, if you think i am cheering for Dee and or La Raza to win, you are sadly mistaken - however i am asking you to be realistic
I'll let Europe take care of their own problems. Maybe we can send them a few Mexicans. They love having hordes of kids.
Here in the U.S. our birthrate is still nearlly double our deathrate. I would like to see us back to replacement level anyway. How did the topic all of a sudden change to the decline of European birthrates from discussing diversity?
I resent your insinuations that Americans are lazy or soft. That is negatively stereotyping the citizens of this country. We didn't build this country by being lazy or soft even though we don't do as much manual labor jobs as we use to and seek an education for a job that requires brains instead. We still have a high rate of blue collar workers in this country.
You are asking me to be realistic about what?
Post a Comment