udaydanceparty

Lots of claims and ideas here you are jump around with. Can you show any of them have cause and effect or correlation? It doesn't seem like population growth helped places like India or China. Seems like on a per capita basis, Switzerland seems to be doing a hell of a lot better than them and have for a long time. Or South Korea... Japan. There doesn't seem to be a linear relationship between population growth and economic prosperity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita China is lower than Mexico on a per capita basis. ------------------------------ As for the americans are the drain part.. I find it hard to believe that in a world with finite resources, more people would always be a good thing. Especially when we know that migrant families are significantly more likely to be on government assistance than people who were born here. That's not a knock on them, but a reality that they don't have established relationships and a social safety net that a family would normally provide.

Factually incorrect. Immigration Act of 1882 was when the US began to impose limitations on immigration. Same year they excluded all Chinese immigrants for 10 years. 1885 they passed the Alien Contract Labor law which banned the importation of foreign labor. Immigration Act of 1891 allowed the US government to deport illegal immigrants. First permanent hard cap on immigration was the Johnson Reed act in 1924 along with the "National Origins Formula" the same year. There are also plenty of other instances where the US government acted like shit heads with regard to immigrants so the argument of tradition is complete bullshit. Either way.. legislation of the past wasn't always the right thing to do and we really should think for ourselves on this issue. I have the belief that it's a good thing to have migrants, but I do think there comes a point where it's unsustainable. I just don't know the numbers where we are getting the most people we can without it causing problems. How many people can we handle take in every year before it becomes a drain on our system?

No one is arguing that antisemitism didn't exist in Europe before the migrant crisis started in Europe. The point was that you've seen a dramatic increase after the refugees arrived. I don't think that it's off base to say that antisemitism has been rooted into the culture of many of the people within the middle east. Having an influx of people with antisemitic beliefs is probably one of the reasons you've see a rise in antisemitism. Look at the favorability ratings of Jews in Europe vs the middle east.. The jewish community (and by extension the media that writes on their behalf) also seem to believe that to be the case. They are publishing plenty of article online talking about it. https://www.algemeiner.com/2015/05/13/study-exposes-depth-of-muslim-antisemitism-in-europe/

Nothing to do with race? Just so you're aware, OP holds the record for most bannings from Shaggy for overtly racist comments and posts. I am reading what's here on this thread about this issue. I don't care about the motives of the OP but if he says something racist, I have no problem calling him out for it. So far, I haven't see it. I'd much prefer to have a dialogue that talks about the issues rather than just throwing ad hominem attacks at one another. It seems so divisive.. I am sure there are some "racist" people who don't want people from Honduras migrating to the US, even though 91% of the population is from European descent and 97% of the population is Catholic. It seems to be that the only people who are arguing that "race" is a factor are the people trying to smear their political opponents. I don't see anyone actually providing an actual counter argument and I wish someone would. What is the appropriate amount of immigrants that our country can take in? If we are beyond that point, how do you pick who can come and who can't? Consider me a neutral party on this issue because I really don't know the answer to these questions.

I thought it was a religion.

Sure.. there was way more antisemitism in Europe over the last 20 years than there was here in the States. That being said, the rise over the past 5-6 years had much more to do with the refugee influx. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-barber/muslim-migrants-fan-europ_b_9395896.html As I said before.. I don't know what the right level of immigration is for the US and whether we need more or less. I do think that the optics of this migration is bad though.

What counts as white? Are these people white? Pretty much all of the Western Hemisphere has populations that are primarily of European dissent. Spain, Portugal, France and the UK colonized it. Your average "white" American is typically just as European as they are. It's not race or skin pigment that is causing a problem. It's about people fleeing poverty and the US trying to limit how many people they let in so they can properly integrate and assimilate into society. I don't know if the current influx is too high or too low or how much we can handle. I do think that those things need to be monitored and policy makers need to make sure that whatever laws we agree to are enforced.

Either this is an anti-immigration group that intends to use these people as pawns to create horrible optics for the opposition or this is the stupidest pro-immigration group on the face of the earth. There is little more that Trump could ask for right now than to have these kinds of pictures popping up when he's trying to build the wall. Especially right before midterms.

It has nothing to do with race. Refugees bring their problems with them. Antisemitism is suddenly a big problem in Europe and it's most likely caused by the influx of migrants who are most definitely antisemitic. Within the middle east, outside of Israel it's pretty popular to chant "Death to Israel". I seriously doubt it's unrelated.

The optics are so bad on this you have to wonder if the people who organized this march were actually anti-immigration.

All that shows is that you don't actually listen to the people you are arguing with.

The link you provided showed 46% pro-life which was the exact same term I used. You sure like to create strawmen.

Pro-Life outnumbers gun control advocates in this country. Even in that demographic. Sex and martial status are the variables that seem to have the biggest impact on whether or not someone supports gun control/abortion. Married men are more likely to oppose gun control vs an unmarried man by around 10%. Women are more in favor of gun control but once they are married, they are less likely to support gun control by~10%. It seems to be that the people that are actually fucking seem to want to keep their guns. The fat single women and soy boys seem to want to disarm everyone.

There aren't enough transgenders in this country to fill some highschool football stadiums. The Orlando shooter was gay wasn't he? A lot of these school shooters had pent up sexual aggression like Brisket pointed out so it could be related to that. Balitmore, Detroit and St Louis have plenty of gang related mass shootings which are effectively the same thing. The shooters are targeting the people that they feel have wronged them and go to the locations those people frequent. If you read the manifestos of the school shooters and listen to their stories, every single one was made an outcast by their peers, felt alienated and lashed out.

Larger clips tend to cause more jams actually.

Well we elected Hitler right? Don't you think we should be able to defend ourselves from Trump/Hitler?

1990s? Bullshit. Pretty much every single time we have a mass shooting, someone with a gun (usually police) takes the shooter out or they kill themselves. They normally don't change their minds and turn themselves in. The last school shooting we had was ended within seconds of it starting by a "resource officer" with a gun. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html Like I said before.. when was the last time a shooter was taken out because he was reloading? Even with 15 mag handguns, that doesn't seem to be a problem.

When has an active shooter ever been taken down because he was busy reloading?

Why 15? Is there any sort of evidence that a 15 round mag would lead to a lower number of fatalities? Seem arbitrary.

So scared!

I know what the term means. It's a term used to describe how families integrate into communities while still holding onto traditions from their place of origins. It's a process that happens over several generations.

Heritage isn't something to be proud of like it's a personal accomplishment. Your ancestors being from one island vs another isn't something to be proud of, it's dumb. It's just a way to divide people into different groups.