• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White students to no longer be majority at school[W:62]

You are lying. Redress did not say anything about where the undocumented immigrants are. Not one word.

I've gone back and re-read all of that, and you're either lying or you're ignorant. You decide.

Do you two even know what it means when someone says "<insert name here> and "I" were talking about <x>? You both do realize that such a statement is talking about a WHOLE conversation. NOT just one side. IE: In this case we're not talking about just Redress's comments. We're also talking about the other half of the conversation. IE: Mine.

Can either of you stop being dishonest for once?
 
The topic presented and which I was responding referenced the Civil War, not WWII. Keep up.

My ancestors came from Armenia at the end of the Armenian holocaust. Neither your ancestors or mine (well actually one grandmother was a DAR and I'd have directed my "white" comments at her family with no hesitation) were being discussed.

Your comments weren't true in the Civil War era either.
 
Just another sign that the "open borders" quasi policy is on a path to overburden our systems...What say you?

Link

Your time is over. Welcome to how the rest of us live.
 
Yes it has been a melting pot. Full of LEGAL immigrants that came to this country in hopes of assimilating into the American society and becoming Americans....Those coming now are neither legal, nor want to assimilate to America.

That "refusal to assimilate" lie is what peope said about immigrants over a hundred years ago. They were wrong then, you are wrong now.
 
You're right, in that post I did. I was confused due to something that Summerwind posted. I'm sure that you will realize that I had initially assumed that it was about illegal immigration in my first response to you about that graph.

As I noted, you have spoken out of both sides of your mouth on this point. That doesn't make you right or honest.

And to boot, you said my posting the graph was dishonest. You have yet to correct yourself about this accusation of yours.


No, I did. My argument to Redress was about it in response to what he said. IE: it was an evolving conversation. One which you obviously did not wait to finish or progress being butting in.

You said that you and Redress were talking about where they lived. It was only you. Redress said nothing about it.

And Redress has had more than enough time to respond to it. He hasn't

But I did, and I pointed out that you are wrong about where most of them live. Most of them live outside of the southwestern states.

Lets find out shall we? The population of California is roughly 37.2 million. Going by your graph 7.3% of that total is made up of illegal aliens. Which equals out to roughly 2,715,600. In Texas the total population is 26.4 million. According to your graph illegal aliens make up 5.96% of that population. Which equals out to roughly 1,573,440. Add those two up and you get 4,289,040. Now lets add in Nevada, total population of 2.7 million. According to your graph illegal aliens make up 8.85% of the total population. Which totals out to roughly 238,950. Total so far is 4,527,990. Next up, Arizona. Population: 6.5 million roughly. According to your graph, illegals make up 7.69% of the total population of AZ. Which is roughly 499,850. Grand total so far: 5,027,840. Utah: 2.9 million. Your Graph: 4.02%. Total: 116,580. Grand Total: 5,144,420. New Mexico: Roughly 2.1 million. Your Graph: 4.03%. Total: 84,630. Grand Total: 5,229,050. Colorado: 5.3 mil. Your Graph: 4.86. Total: 257,580. Grand Total: 5,402,000.

Alright, I'll amend my previous statement. How about the word "a lot" of illegal immigrants are centered in the south western states? It might not be most, but it sure as hell is a good chunk of them. Particularly when you consider that the southwestern states only make up a quarter of the US.

I have already posted a link which shows that most of them do not live in the Southwestern states. As far as "a lot" goes, it's vague to the point of meaningless. Idaho has about 30K of them, and it could be argued that 30K is "a lot" of people. I would also point that the northeastern states and western states that have a lot of them too.
 
That "refusal to assimilate" lie is what peope said about immigrants over a hundred years ago. They were wrong then, you are wrong now.

Yep, when people said that about immigrants. The same is not true of illegal aliens.
 
Do you two even know what it means when someone says "<insert name here> and "I" were talking about <x>? You both do realize that such a statement is talking about a WHOLE conversation. NOT just one side. IE: In this case we're not talking about just Redress's comments. We're also talking about the other half of the conversation. IE: Mine.

Can either of you stop being dishonest for once?

No, you are not talking about just Redress' comments. You're talking and redress' and your comments. Problem, "Redress and you" were not talking about that. Only you were.

One person talking about something is not "a conversation" about something.
 
Still trying to push the lie that the number of hispanics in school that has you so terrified is about illegal immigration?
Still being dishonest in what others post I see. Nowhere did I say that I was "terrified" about anything. My op was more a comment on open borders and multiculturalism than anything else. Get it straight or don't address me with your lies.
 
The inequalities in the politics and laws of South and Central America are the result of govts that the US has supported and even promoted.

IOW, it's the US that has a disappointing record of promoting equality under the law, a free press, or human rights, in those countries.

Right! It's the fault of the United States again. Whoda thought?

What made the United States so strong, able to influence countries all over Latin America, and all over the world for that matter, while Latin America remained relatively weak? Any ideas?
 
Am I to presume you'd prefer to call the prevailing attitude in the OP prejudicial or bias then? Wouldn't either points of view lean towards an attitude of White superiority which in itself implies racism?

Actually much of the success of White people can be traced back to the Protestant work ethic and a relatively free people. Countries with laws and freedoms influenced by Christianity did much better than those who practiced other religions.
 
Please read my post (#244) which you quoted again. I think you'll find we share the same opinion on the matter.



From the standpoint of assimilation, I tend to agree with you. But will America learn from its failed practices of the past where it fought so hard not to allow Native Americans the opportunity to assimilate into American culture? Or the Chinese? For nearly 100 years Black? And now Mexicans/Hispanics?

Of the four, I'd say Blacks had an advantage in that while slaves they came to learn the ways of the White man not from a tactical point of view, i.e., Indians, but social and culturally. Thus, assimilation ultimately was easier. Of course, if Whites would have been more willing to get out of the way and let the laws of nature run its course I think relationships between Blacks and Whites would have greatly improved in their own way over time. But fear and this sense of national ownership got in the way. Those who hold power and influence today are bound to make the same mistakes. You see it festering in the very OP that has caused such an uproar among posters.
Those who hold power today are of a mixed bag, and largely because of assimilation and the adoption of western policies and traditions. Certainly there were prejudices in America, just as elsewhere, and it is past due to move on from those times.

America has done very well in assimilating people of various colors and religions from all over the world, and I know of few countries which have done better,
 
Yes. Both parties have and continue to expand government at an equal rate. Both parties are the problem.

Both parties are the problem but there seems to be a significant segment of people who actually want larger government, a demand that politicians and bureaucrats are only to happy to meet.
 
Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

As for assimilation, if these folks really believe one should assimilate to the culture of the country they are entering, we should all be Native American in culture by now. They don't believe what they are saying, not really. They only mean that assimilation is best if non-hispanic whites is the culture that has to be assimilated into.
The Native American culture was too weak and was easily overcome by the Europeans. Perhaps the same thing will happen again, but the stronger and more determined culture generally wins.
 
The Native American culture was too weak and was easily overcome by the Europeans. Perhaps the same thing will happen again, but the stronger and more determined culture generally wins.

So if the European American's culture turns out to be too weak to withstand the influx of Latino culture, all is perfect with the world.
 
Yep, when people said that about immigrants. The same is not true of illegal aliens.

That was also long before welfare programs and food stamps. People then were forced to work, and assimilate, in order to survive.
 
The Native American culture was too weak and was easily overcome by the Europeans.

This is just unbelievable.

You really just don't know what you are talking about and will stoop to any level, no matter how ignorant to support any argument no matter how weak.

A big reason why Europeans triumphed over indigenous populations is because European diseases almost wiped them all out.
 
So if the European American's culture turns out to be too weak to withstand the influx of Latino culture, all is perfect with the world.

The Latino culture is a European culture. Since the defeat of the Spanish Armada they have not tended to do as well as the North and Western Europeans, especially the British.
 
This is just unbelievable.

You really just don't know what you are talking about and will stoop to any level, no matter how ignorant to support any argument no matter how weak.

A big reason why Europeans triumphed over indigenous populations is because European diseases almost wiped them all out.

Yes, disease did wipe out a great many Native Americans and European education and technology did the rest. Native American natives are also the most ignored segment of North American society and that holds true for indigenous people all the way down to Tierra Del Fuego.
 
The Latino culture is a European culture. Since the defeat of the Spanish Armada they have not tended to do as well as the North and Western Europeans, especially the British.

Okay, you're going to play that game. Enjoy. You either grasp my point or you don't this far in.
 
This is just unbelievable.

You really just don't know what you are talking about and will stoop to any level, no matter how ignorant to support any argument no matter how weak.

A big reason why Europeans triumphed over indigenous populations is because European diseases almost wiped them all out.

A contributing factor, but not near the sole or even controlling factor. Their culture(s) were very weak on warfare and land ownership. They didn't have a chance no matter their numbers. The Europeans would have just kept coming, in ever greater numbers, with ever better killing tech and technique.
 
We don't have any open border policy, hence your post is entirely full of dung. Adios!

Perhaps 20 million illegal immigrants crossed the border without a passport, did not get a work permit or a Visa, got jobs, were offered low interest home and car loans, offered low cost housing, free education, free health care, etc and are now being offered amnesty. If that isn't open then nothing is. To deny the USA has an open border is literally an ignorant position... or politically biased, and that could be even worse.
 
That "refusal to assimilate" lie is what peope said about immigrants over a hundred years ago. They were wrong then, you are wrong now.

You have obviously never been to heavily populated Mexican areas such as Santa Ana...
 
Right! It's the fault of the United States again. Whoda thought?

What made the United States so strong, able to influence countries all over Latin America, and all over the world for that matter, while Latin America remained relatively weak? Any ideas?

The differences in colonial systems between the various European powers that colonized the Americas

And military power, which Native Americans had not as extensively developed as the Europeans because of the wealth of natural resources and lack of geographical features to separate them into nations (see Aaron Diamond)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom