Is it racism to be against immigration?

Post Reply New Topic

This is a significant backtracking...

The borders of the EU are not "open", and even if they were, that's not really anything to worry about. Particularly as poorer nations experience greater development, there will be fewer emigrants - this is included in the same reports that project Nigeria will have a bigger population than the US in 2050.

"Honest" is a rather accurate way of phrasing it. Someone who "fibs a bit on documents in order to get paying work" that they aren't legally entitled to is, indeed, a criminal. There's a world of difference between exaggerating about high school grades and falsely claiming citizenship.

In response to the OP. No, it's not racist to be against immigration - though the two are obviously not mutually exclusive.

Personal opinion here...I'm originally from New Zealand and have migrated to the US, although haven't bothered going the full step yet: Immigration and racism can be two separate issues. They can also be two very connected issues. I suspect the real concern is lack of assimilation and that blame can often fall on both the adopting country and the immigrant, particularly if they speak a different language (it's often seen as a sign of disrespect when you continue speaking in your own tongue, while neglecting to learn the language of your adoptive country). Sometimes it's easy to stick with one's own kind, because 'they get it'. Other times, individuals are excluded because they're 'not from around here' and locals find it hard to reach out, fearing nothing in common etc. I think the big issue you've raised is to do with a massive culture clash. You have mention secular versus deeply religious and while both groups can be passionate about various topics, you're generally going to find that there's more of a tolerance in the secular versus the religious (tolerance for many things and the perspective is more individual, rather than 'taught'). In short, if we're realistic, it can work, has worked, but for some reason doesn't work so well in this day and age. No, it's not racist...it's more culturalist.

There are times that wish Uncle Sugar would drop a Lexan(tm) curtain round the country, and cut off all forms of immigration, emigration, trade, education, and communication with the rest of the world. Let the remainder of the world fix their own problems, and stop relying on the U.S. for help. Hell, the U.S. is already the laughingstock for the world. Why should we be the police for the entire world?

I'm all for this. Quarantining America would solve about 90% of global problems overnight.

It is not "racist" to be against immigration, and I also like to add that it's also not "racist" to be with your own and to love your own race (The Arab race, the Aryan race, the Asian race, the Hispanic race, the Jewish race, the Negro race and the Semitic race [The Palestinians are the Semitic race) whatever race that might be.

Yours sincerely, The_Truthteller

Indeed. Semantically, I find little about the phrase White Pride that is offensive, though most of its supporters are so, in my opinion. If there are friendly, nonviolent Black Pride, Latino Pride, LGBT Pride and Autism Pride movements, why shouldn't there be an equally friendly, nonviolent White Pride movement? If all act lawfully, should I worry?

Hypothetically, is it possible for a transracial individual to hate their birth race?

AspieUtah, firstly thank you for the kind words.

Secondly, if you mean someone of mixed ancestry when talking about a transracial individual, then I believe that a person of mixed ancestry must choose which race of their Parent's they which to preserve in order to restrengthen that race.

Thirdly, if you're American, you have someone who can top the very high standards that John F. Kennedy set as president of the United States of America; his name is Dr. David Duke, you can check him out here: https://www.youtube.com/user/drdduke (Don't take heed of the people who call him a "White Supremacist" as he is the farthest thing from that).

Yours sincerely, The_Truthteller

There's no reason to worry about a friendly, non-violent White Pride movement (aside from the likelihood that it would probably quickly be misappropriated by white supremacists). The difference with between that movement and the one you list is that in most countries, white people have not faced systematic oppression due to their whiteness - or to clarify, whiteness has not led to people being systematically oppressed.

Those movements aren't so much "pride" movements as "lack of shame" movements. It means something to stand up and say "I'm gay, got a problem with that?". It doesn't mean anything to stand up and say you're not ashamed of being straight, or neurotypical. There's no reason for you to be ashamed of those things, either.

It might be appropriate for white people to have pride movements in countries where they are oppressed by racist regimes or societies - I guess Zimbabwe is the closest? - but I don't think it would make any sense in America, Europe, South America, Australia and New Zealand, or indeed most of the regions of the world where white people are a minority.

The_Walrus, "Whites" (I consider them by their proper name, which is Aryan) are being oppressed. If you like to know more about what I'am talking about, watch videos from David Duke's channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/drdduke. I hope that helps.

Yours sincerely, The_Truthteller

Is this the same David Duke who was a Grand Wizard of the KKK? Who founded Stormfront? Who joined the American Friends of the BNP? Who described integration as "racial genocide"? Who wants African Americans to be segregated into a separate country? Who claimed that Israel orchestrate 9/11? Who said Israel makes the Nazis look moderate? And Israel is occupying New York, LA and London? Who said these things?

I am not going to listen to a word that man has to say about race relations.

Well, as a longtime LGBT activist, I remember the earliest of Duke's statements (which I considered to be misguided interpretations of constitutional law). But, in his later life, he has been much more logical and accommodating. Though, I can't say that I would agree with his ideas too much.

When I was a federal hate-crimes adviser to the U.S. Office of the Attorney for the District of Utah in the 1990s, I met a former neo-Nazi skinhead at our hate-crime conference who renounced everything he did and was mid-way through getting his tattoos removed. He now speaks to school students around the United States.

In my own state, when we had a fairly popularized neo-Nazi group in southern Utah during the 1980s, I found them misguided and offensive, but interestingly intelligent. They were quick on their intellectual feet. And, because mainstream media sometimes included me to "balance" their interviews, I would defend their free speech against the reporters who were trying to get us into a shouting match. I despised the reporters more than I did the neo-Nazis.

In fact, the leader of this one-time group is now marching every year in the Las Vegas LGBT Pride Parade with his gay son and black daughter-in-law! After getting accused of being a part of the Oklahoma City Bombing (which was untrue), he spent some time in prison and returned as a great father and funny stand-up comedy guy. He renounced it all and is completely friendly. The only reason he sometimes resembles his former self is when he gets angry about people messing with his kids.

AspieUtah, neo-Nazi (The term "Nazi" was created as derogatory term against German and National Socialist alike) skinheads don't actually know the meaning behind the Swastika. The Swastika was created by Adolf Hitler as a symbol to strike fear towards the Communists, which is all in the documentary (Which is banned in quite a few countries; if they have nothing to hide why ban the documentary) "The Greatest Story NEVER Told", you just need to watch it with an open mind.

Yours sincerely, The_Truthteller

The_Truthteller-

Your use of the word "Aryan" is in fact incorrect. The proper term is Indo-European, and even that today is more a linguistic designation rather than an ethnic one. To be sure, there had been at one time a Neolithic-Bronze Age group of horse taming nomads who had exploded out of the steppes of Eurasia in all directions, spreading their language and religion to everywhere they had settled. While the Aryans had been one segment of this Indo-European group, they in fact only colonized what is today Iran, India, Pakistan, etc. No Aryan in fact ever stepped foot in prehistoric Europe. And while most Europeans today carry the R1a and R1b genetic signatures most commonly associated with Indo-Europeans, none of them are anywhere near pure. In fact, Germanic peoples have a high degree of haplogroup I1, and I2 in their population, which in fact can be traced back to the Ice Age hunter gatherers rather than to the people Hitler and his Nazis referred to as Aryans. In fact, the Slavs, who Hitler had deemed untermenschen, had a greater degree of haplogroup R1a than the people of Germany, the low countries, or Scandinavia, who Hitler believed were the purest Aryans, as they were Germanic.

Have you read Antony C. Sutton's book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler ( https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sut ... Hitler.pdf )? There is much about Hitler I don't like or agree with, but, if Sutton's claims (about Wall Street banks financing the German Reich) are true, Hitler was very likely set up. We know for a fact that U.S. President George W. Bush's grandfather, U.S. Sen. Prescott Bush of Connecticut, "was a founding member and one of seven directors [...] of the Union Banking Corporation" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_ ... orporation ) which "the United States seized [...] under the Trading with the Enemy Act" in 1942.

Interestingly (and surprisingly for most people), Hitler also designed the International Olympic Rings that appear on the Olympic Flag and elsewhere. He also conceived the idea for the running of the Olympic Torch Relay from Greece to various host cities allowing filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl to film it and create powerful propaganda images.

Could you clarify what you mean by "set up"?


This is not true. They were designed by Pierre de Coubertin in 1912 and first officially used in the 1920 Games. They featured more prominently in 1936 though.