Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


Interesting perspective on immigration

Discuss issues related to government, politics, and law.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

Post Reply
User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6407
Joined: August 17th, 2012, 5:22 am

Interesting perspective on immigration

Post by Cornfed » January 3rd, 2018, 7:09 pm

Listening to a podcast recently, it was interesting to find our how the 1965 Immigration Act screwed America so badly, while seemingly being rather benign. Before 1965, immigration quotas were small and designed to maintain the racial and cultural balance, so going mainly to Northern and Western European countries. Based on the culture of critique, i.e. evil Jews undermining white society at every turn, this was seen as overtly racist and therefore unacceptable, so changes were proposed to open up immigration to other parts of the world and relax the required skills needed.

However, some conservatives predicted this would mean America would be taken over and ruined by third world primitives, and so chain migration, where immigrants can sponsor their relatives, was added to assuage this fear. The thinking was (or was pretended to be) that since most immigrants were European, most of the recipients of chain migration would also be European, and therefore immigration policy could retain its European bias without seeming to be racist. Makes sense, no?

So what went so horribly wrong? Amnesty and refugees. These formed the small seed populations for chain migration. Because they hailed from high growth populations where people had huge numbers of relatives, these seed population could rabidly expand to teeming millions. Even that was not enough for the bad guys because it left much of the third world untapped, which is where evil hand-rubbing Jew Charles Schumer’s diversity lottery came in. It was no longer necessary to take in refugees or grant amnesty. You could establish your seed population for chain migration simply by handing out citizenship randomly in any random third world shithole.

But you say, why wasn’t there also an increase in European immigration through both chain migration and the diversity lottery? Because European countries were mostly rich and low fertility and therefore European immigrants had few relatives and most of those didn’t want to leave their mostly good jobs and lives and start again in America. Hence the mudification of America was achieved.

You could look and the whole debacle as an argument against trying to be politically correct.

gsjackson
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2147
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 3:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA
Contact:

Re: Interesting perspective on immigration

Post by gsjackson » January 3rd, 2018, 8:47 pm

Maybe Schumer was marching to the drum of political correctness when he introduced the bill in 1990, but I suspect his motives were just as Machiavellian as those of his Yiddish predecessor from New York, Jacob Javits, in 1965 -- protect Jewish interests by diluting the white Christian majority.

Mission accomplished, of course. Go anywhere in the American southwest now, and you will think you are in Mexico.

User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6407
Joined: August 17th, 2012, 5:22 am

Re: Interesting perspective on immigration

Post by Cornfed » January 4th, 2018, 2:40 am

gsjackson wrote:
January 3rd, 2018, 8:47 pm
Maybe Schumer was marching to the drum of political correctness when he introduced the bill in 1990, but I suspect his motives were just as Machiavellian as those of his Yiddish predecessor from New York, Jacob Javits, in 1965 -- protect Jewish interests by diluting the white Christian majority.
Yeah of course. I was referring to the cuckservatives who bought into the Jewish “Racism is bayid, m’kay” narrative, thus rendering any further opposition to this horrific disaster completely futile and counterproductive. If they had stuck to their guns and demanded remaining a white country at all stages, then none of this horror show needed to happen. It shows that you can’t let the Jews control the narrative, however innocuous of a concession it might seem at first.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Government, Politics, Law”