Black People Need a Safe State in America—Let’s Make It Georgia

You were arguing that the Japanese were dying out, not that their population would reduce 10 or 20 percent. That may be an advantage to have reduced their population by that amount, so what is the purpose of the immigration if you now no longer think the Japanese are headed to extinction?

 

Do you think the majority of people who participate in the drug trade manage to lift themselves out of poverty?

I don’t know, there is tons of crime all over the world. I would wager that a similar percentage of people in poor countries resort to crime as those that do here in the US.

 

Many cultures don't mesh well together. Some do, but many don't.

If you're going to mesh cultures, make sure they're HIGHLY compatible. They must share fundamentals, whatever flavour they happen to be. Fundamentals like family/stability/honour/social responsibility/work ethic, etc. The reason some Asian cultures mesh so well with some Western cultures, is precisely those shared fundamentals.

 

You misunderstood me. I did not say that their population was on track to reduce by ten to twenty percent. I suggested that it would not be a terrible thing for them to make up 80-90 percent of the total population.
Allowing for more immigration would help address the issues they are seeing with their current negative birth rates.

 

Most cultures are capable of meshing. Look at US culture. It is comprised of all of the cultures that have settled here. The dominant culture is product of many. I think that’s great!

 

1) Of course not, because they're trying to take the lazy way. If they were serious about not being 'poor', they'd chose a way that actually works.

2) There is nowhere near the amount of street and drug type crime in other poor populations, as there is in the First World. Many cultures are morally opposed to demeaning themselves and their communities to that degree.

 

@Space_Time

Is This Another "one way street"?
I mean, given a State
would "they" all have to live there,
or could "they" still live here too?



Moi

​

 

No, they really are not. Look what's happened in Scandinavia ... with the advent of Arab and North African peoples. They have a wildly different attitude to honour and community, and thus their adopted nations have suffered immense damage to their previously very peaceful and prosperous societies.

 

Very few ways work. That’s why socioeconomic mobility in the US is so low.

Ever been to Somalia?

 

Do you think there could be other factors at play? Such as the fact that they’re refugees living in poverty?

 

What would happen in your scenario is people and businesses would move out of the states you would prefer to live in and move to Florida and Texas like they're doing now. And, of course, replacing those people would be the illegals and refugees who would put a drain on every aspect of your society.

 

1) Bull. Non-white migrants to America top the statistics in wealth/education/health etc, and MANY of them have come from humble beginnings. The reason they migrate to America (and to my country) in the first place is because there are so damned many ways to get ahead. They know that in America - their effort, self-discipline, and hard work will actually pay off.

2) I've lived in the Third World. I've worked amongst the poorest of the poor, and been safer than anywhere I've ever been in the First World. Honour and decency are cultural observations that not everyone shares. Your example of Somalia demonstrates that very well.

 

I don’t think the people moving to Texas are doing it for the right wing politics. Pretty sure it’s just major cities that are seeing significant population growth and those are predominantly left leaning.

 

Indo-Chinese refugees (war traumatised, and very very poor) didn't turn on their hosts when they migrated to the West in the 1970s. They were subject to language barriers, racism, and protracted poverty .. but they did what they needed to do to ensure their kids would know a better life, and they did it while respecting the people and laws of the land.

 

Yes because most of them come here with technical skills that are more highly rewarded than in their country of origin. Immigrating to a new country is not a cheap process and the people capable of such tend to be well off economically.

Nice anecdote.

Top ten highest crime rates by country.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country
How many of those would you consider to be first world countries?

 

Fair point.
I would be interested in a study that is able to quantify contributing factors to higher crime rates as compared to this particular refugee event.

 

I disagree. It is sort of like death before dishonor.

 

Fundamental disagreement then. Moving on…

 

Im OK with black people buying property and saying only black people can be on the properrty they own. But thats the ONLY way Im OK with this sort of thing happening. I dont think its a good idea, but it would be acceptable and it should be within the rights of property owners.

Public property should remain open to the public.

 

Sure, nothing legally wrong with owning property and setting standards for who is allowed on that property, even if the reasons are racist. But that is a no go for public spaces which a city/state is largely comprised of.

 

They're not a 'particular' event. They are just a sample of their own fairly universal culture.

And the studies have been done. The primary contributor is a dysfunctional home life in childhood. First World poverty is itself just another manifestation of the same thing. It's caused by sh!tty life choices - failure to finish school, having kids you can't afford, not staying married, not living within your means, etc etc.

 

That's only a relatively new thing. Up until this century, the majority of Third World migrants did not arrive with money and marketable skills, and it's those people who are or were equally responsible for (via their parenting choices), the statistics.

 

Well if I misunderstood you, it was because you actually said, "They already make up 98% of the population. What would it matter if they made up 80-90?"

So if we are no longer talking about Japanese extinction, their negative birthrates at this time don't seem to be a problem. So if that's the case, what is the purpose of the immigration?

 

If you earn 35k you're in the global top 1%. The remaining 99% of people aren't committing crimes. Why are these people?

Ah yes, the "I can't have a Porsche so it's okay for me to gangbang, rob, kill, etc"

 

These are all cycles of behavior exacerbated by poverty. I get it you’re a capitalist and capitalism can do no wrong, so any maladies of society most be caused by the individual. It’s really not true and I’m tired of going in circles on this particular topic. Care to move on to something else?