Perhaps, but the real question is why would you make such a vapid comment?
Sure. The moderators would have no problem with an immoderate WNist.
…………and many others.
It’s this type of insipid, nitpicking marginalia that drive controversial posters away. Congratulations, you can now return to arguing about whom (who?) is the most liberal.
Sorry, I don’t think it is vapid. You think she is doing an admirable job parrying all the multiple thrusts of a much larger group. I think she is doing a pathetic job, weaving, dodging and ignoring. So I suggest that if you think she is doing such a great job, support her arguments against the much larger group. Or, maybe you specialize in pronouncing your opinions and not backing them up. As indeed you’ve done again here.
I am not a moderator. But I would be inclined to think that if an “immoderate” WN showed up and adhered to generally accepted debating principles (as outlined in the related Pit thread) they’d be OK. Sionnach’s views are themselves moderate only by comparison with others at SF - they are quite extreme in the context of this MB (& population at large).
If you are going to throw some quotes at me, please throw some of my own. (Not that I agree with you that the ones you cite are marginalia, BTW)
Yes, the ignorant are often sent fleeing when confronted with demonstrations that their own words reveal their ignorance. What are you doing here still?
I thought we had settled that it was elucidator. 
There are many impovershed areas that are mainly white, and no one even has to lock their doors.
Yes, WN are fine with free trade. We don’t need to want to be surrounded by Mexicans to chew gum. Nations trading with one another is a more peaceful “flow of ideas” to me than importing millions of immigrants to displace white workers and commit crimes/burden the welfare system.
We have no problem with tourism. I can enjoy the “wonders of the world” by travel, not by importing millions of immigrants from their countries.
David, I’m not answering your “valid question” because you have none.
Someone mentioned the “whites won’t work for those wages” arguement. This would be a valid point, if wages in certain sectors weren’t deflated because of migrant labor. Worker bargaining power relies on supply/demand. If thousands of immigrants are brought in, the supply of workers is so high that employers can lower the wages as much as possible. It’s been a common strategy for businessmen to destroy the bargaining power of native workers by importing cheap immigrants. If they had to rely on native workers instead of immigrants, wages would go up.
There are no urban areas of white poverty (true poverty, not “lower middle class”) where everyone is safe to leave their doors unlocked.
Conversely, I know of no rural pockets of non-white poverty that are any more dangerous than the rural white neighborhoods.
Economy. Class. Not ethnicity.
Lib, I don’t hate you. I don’t hate David either. I think he might just be young.
I want to know why the mestizos in California had a fit about considering English to be the official language, and for illegal immigrants to be turned in and deported for using social services (breaking the law). The mestizo kids in my school cut class to protest about this. If all they want is to assimilate and follow the laws, why would they do this?
Why are ILLEGALS in France DEMANDING papers for legal residency? Shouldn’t they be on their hands and knees begging to not be punished for breaking the law? SOURCE
This doesn’t tell me that “Diversity is Strength”. This just tells me that immigrants are taking advantage of our countries, and that most of us are too naive to see it.
For one thing, California has long been Spanish-its Spanish heritage is longer than its English heritage.
I live in a street in an impoverished area. I have to lock my doors. If I didn’t, I’d be robbed blind. I’ve been burgled 5 times in the last 7 years, and my car has been vandalised dozens of times (19 times in 12 months, for instance).
Thing is, my street is 100% white; the area I live in is almost 100% white; the city I live in is almost 100% white; the country I live in is almost 100% white.
It’s not race: it’s economic.
Those high crime cities… white people used to live there. They built the cities and they used to be good places to live. Why do you think white people left those cities? Why do you think California used to be the “Golden State” that everyone dreamed about moving to, and now even the current residents like the idea of LA county being wiped off the face of the earth?
Why? Because the place is a trashcan now. No one forces anyone to pick up a crack pipe and become an addict. No one forces blacks and mestizos to do drive-by shootings. They do it on their own, and I think it’s about time we put the blame where it lies instead of blaming the omnipresent “white racism” for conditions they’re in from their own choices and behavior.
Probably for the same reason that I did. It is a law that serves no purpose other than to make people who do not use English as their primary language the targets of hatred and discrimination. This country has always provided foreign language accomodation to new immigrants–even in the period from 1890 to 1920 when immigrants swelled to over 25% of the population. There is no purpose served by a “official national language”; English has been the de facto national language for ober 200 years and no purpose has been found to make it official.
You will note that in the recent California vote on bi-lingual education, the Latino community was overwhelmingly in favor of teaching in English. They want to learn English, so there is no purpose in making it law.
Well, it is white racism that punishes a black kid with a crack pipe ten times more harshly than a white kid sniffing powder when we have known for years that they are exactly the same interms of addiction and destruction. By having harsher laws for the non-white communities, we simply make it look like they are worse.
Similarly, the crimes of the Irish and Italians and Poles were pretty horrific when they were confined to ghettoes.
Economy. Class. Not ethnicity.
Tom -
According to the World Almanacs of 88-92, why did the District of Columbia (80% black) lead the nation in just about every category of crime including murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and vehicle theft – while having the highest average annual salaries?
Why is English as an official language making immigrants a “target of hate”? What is wrong with ballots being printed in English instead of in ten different languages? Liberals will consider ANYTHING done to make immigrants assimilate and follow some laws making them “targets of hate”. Nope, can’t turn in illegal immigrants who use tax-payer funded social services. That’s discrimination.
Laters all. Taking off for a while.
Surely you don’t mean to imply that high-salaried blacks were responsible for all that criminal activity. The population may well have been 80% black, but of those, how many were represented in those higher-than-average annual salaries? My guess would be “very few”. 20% of the population can still raise the average significantly - especially if those 20% are white politicians.
Things have changed since then, btw. Now, DC’s violent crime rate is below the national average, while its racial makeup hasn’t significantly changed (if anything, the city itself has gotten more black).
To answer your question, even when crime was high, it wasn’t uniform throughout the city, and rich and middle class neighborhoods, both white and black, had significantly lower crime rates than poor neighborhoods.
Jerry’s Aryan Battle website is an acceptable source of information? I thought there was not supposed to be links to clearly vile and racist websites like good ol’ Jerry’s there?
Anything done to make immigrants assimilate and “follow some laws”? You’ve been reading too much hate literature, already. The tradition throughout history has been that immigrants make a conscious effort to assimilate. One does not need to “force” them to do so. There are, in the last 20 years, a few areas in which specific immigrant groups have been less inclined to assimilate than in the past, but those are very specific events with very specific causes. (And many of those causes have to do with the way that they have been mistreated by some citizens.) Establishing an official language is simply one more way to provide excuses for the less intelligent citizenry to display hatred when they encounter someone who does not (yet) speak English.
As to “follow(ing) some laws”: immigrants, as a group, tend to be more law abiding than the general citizenry.
You want ballots in English? Fine with me. We don’t need an official language to do that. What else does an “official language” mean? Do we order everyone to speak only English in stores? So then we can deport any tourists who happen to enter the country with a less than firm grasp of English? Making an “official” language simply gives intolerant people the excuse to abuse people that they feel are different.
Note that according to the Census Bureau, in 1990, there were fewer than 32 million people who did not speak English in their own homes, of whom over 25 million spoke English well or very well, fewer than 5 million spoke English poorly, and fewer than 2 million people spoke no English. 2 million out of 230 million is hardly a number that needs a law to correct it.
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/language/table1.txt
Tom,
It’s very unfortunate that an ostensible debate over WN has been turned into a standard liberal/conservative debate. In fact, as the debate turns, I find it increasingly shifting to issues on which I agree with Sionnach.
I don’t think you can prove anything from tradition. This tradition may have come to be at a time when there was less of an emphasis on multi-culturalism than there is today. Of course in the face of relative intolerance for multi-culturalism immigrants are more inclined to want to assimilate. But when there is an emphasis on multi-culturalism, this may well be changing.
Can you establish that mistreatment of immigrant groups has been on the increase of late? I rather incline to think the difference is due to multi-culturalism, as above.
I don’t know - there are lots of laws that affect a lot less than 2 million people. Anyway, I would say the direction is more important than the absolute amount.
As for Sionnach, you’ve left some matters hanging.
I’m afraid that you’re going to have to define multi-culturalism for me. Some idiots beating to death a Chinese immigrant because they think that the Japanese took away their auto jobs hardly seems like a result of “multi-culturalism.” Nor does the judge letting them off with stern warnings. (Yeah it’s an older case, but not that old.)
There are only three groups that I am aware have resisted assimilation: the Florida Cubans, a limited number of California Mexicans, and a tiny number of Vietnamese Montagnards. (And among the Montagnards, it appears that the second generation is following the typical “become American” path of all other immigrants.) Each of these represents a special case, from my perspective. I have seen no evidence for and enormous amounts of evidence against the idea that the Russains, Poles, Indians, and Arabs who have swelled the immigration roles in the last twenty years are doing anything other than assimilating as quickly as they can.
If one wants to address specific issues with the Cuban and Mexican immigrants, then they should be addressed rather than painting “immigrants” with a broad brush that goes counter to the reality.
(And, as I noted earlier, even with the issues regarding some Mexican immigrants resisting assimilation, when California voted to do away with bi-lingual education, the Latino community was strongly in favor of moving toward English-only classes rather than the failed efforts of bi-lingual classes.)
I have still never heard a single argument for making an official language that actually intended to improve the quality of U.S. life.