4 ms·

> especially in the United States. China has 1.4 million immigrants, and 12000 foreigners with permanent residency. Not per year, but total, cumulative [1]. De

> especially in the United States. China has 1.4 million immigrants, and 12000 foreigners with permanent residency. Not per year, but total, cumulative [1]. Despite having 4x the population of the USA. Meanwhile the USA has gone from 83% White in 1970 [2], to White children being a minority [3] in less than 50 years. And most of that change was due to legal immigration (that they were promised wouldn't change anything [4]) Yet still they're called out for not erasing their own identity even faster. So do you just not believe in the national right to self-determination, to decide who may live among them? Do you also not believe in this right for Kashmir [5,6] or Palestine? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta... [3] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/less-than-half-of-us-children-under-15-are-white-census-shows/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/less-than-half-of-us-chil... [4] Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), asserted that the bill would not affect the U.S. demographic mix - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac... [5] Kashmir’s new status could bring demographic change, drawing comparisons to the West Bank - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/08/kashmirs-new-status-could-bring-demographic-change-drawing-comparisons-west-bank/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/08/kashmirs-new... [6] Human rights activists said that the moves to change Kashmir’s status were only the first steps in a broader plan to erode Kashmir’s core rights and seed the area with non-Kashmiris, altering the demographics and eventually destroying its character. Previous laws barred outsiders from owning property. - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-jammu.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/asia/india-pakistan...

hshdhdhj4444 11mo ago
How long did it take America to go from 0% white to almost complete native erasure? If we’re gonna apply your definitionally racist argument then whites (ie Europeans) (or Asians or Africans) shouldn’t be in the country. Also, apparently you’re ok with America’s population doubling with immigration as long as those immigrants are white Europeans? The share of immigrants as a percentage of population is about where it was between the mid 1800s and early 1900s, but you’re fine with that because it was primarily Europeans? (Although, ironically, a lot of those Europeans were also not considered white contemporaneously and it’s only now that their descendants consider themselves white and rail about all the non white immigeants).
- pandaman 11mo ago
  I would not be using the "natives were wiped out by foreign conquerors" argument in support of uncontrolled (or any other kind) immigration, if I were you.
- like_any_other 11mo ago
  So the Americans deserve it? Well, thank you for your honesty.
- like_any_other 11mo ago
  > Although, ironically, a lot of those Europeans were also not considered white contemporaneously and it’s only now that their descendants consider themselves white and rail about all the non white immigeants This is outright false: https://www.academia.edu/69843076/The_Becoming_White_Thesis_Revisited https://www.academia.edu/69843076/The_Becoming_White_Thesis_... In fact it is so false, that 8 Irishmen signed the US Declaration of Independence: https://www.irishpost.com/life-style/meet-8-irishmen-signed-us-declaration-independence-july-4-1776-156950 https://www.irishpost.com/life-style/meet-8-irishmen-signed-... The myth was likely started by Noel Ignatiev's "How the Irish Became White" book [1]. The same Noel Ignatiev that co-founded the "Race Traitor" journal, "which promoted the idea that "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity"". Who would have thought such an unbiased and objective academic would be falsifying history. It's an exercise for the reader how something both so unbelievable, and so easily falsified, could persist for so long in academia. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev
ivraatiems 11mo ago
> So do you just not believe in the national right to self-determination, to decide who may live among them? Do you also not believe in this right for Kashmir [5,6] or Palestine? On a personal moral/philosophical level, I think lines on a map which we call "nations" are a foolish way to decide who is allowed to go where and do what. So from first principles, I don't accept the framing. I don't think "national" right to self-determination is a meaningful or valid term. It exists in practice but it is not valuable except in terms of pragmatism/realpolitik. Therefore, I advocate for immigration policies which are much more focused on helping people and bettering society around me than on any nation-based concept of identity. That doesn't mean I want to bring more people who would hurt others into my society. But it does mean I don't care about whether the people who come in are "like me" in some meaningful way. (That doesn't mean I don't act like nations exist or agree that they do, just that my ideal world probably would not include them in that way. Nor does it mean I don't think national lines ever echo the lines of societies or that I'm an anarchist who doesn't believe in governments. I just don't accept the idea that "this person lives on this side of the border" is a meaningful way to decide if they get to live in a place or not.) Also, it sounds like what you consider "national" framing is actually racial framing. Given that you spend a lot of time talking about white people in a nation that has never been just white people, is that not correct?
- like_any_other 11mo ago
  > lines on a map which we call "nations" are a foolish way to decide who is allowed to go where and do what. A nation is a group of people. What you're referring to is territory that belongs to a country. > But it does mean I don't care about whether the people who come in are "like me" in some meaningful way. That's great if you don't value national identity or the differences between nations in any way, but many people do value those. They (myself included) wish to see their and other groups retain their distinctions, and not be homogenized into a globally indistinguishable mush, which is what you propose. > Also, it sounds like what you consider "national" framing is actually racial framing. That is what "national" means [1]. The "people who share a passport" alternative meaning is a very recent redefinition. [1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation
- 11mo ago
raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
Why are you so concerned with White people being the minority? Does the US somehow have a history of not treading minorities equally or something that I’m not aware of?
akimbostrawman 11mo ago
Careful with the facts you are committing serious wrong think

hshdhdhj4444 11mo ago

How long did it take America to go from 0% white to almost complete native erasure? If we’re gonna apply your definitionally racist argument then whites (ie Europeans) (or Asians or Africans) shouldn’t be in the country. Also, apparently you’re ok with America’s population doubling with immigration as long as those immigrants are white Europeans? The share of immigrants as a percentage of population is about where it was between the mid 1800s and early 1900s, but you’re fine with that because it was primarily Europeans? (Although, ironically, a lot of those Europeans were also not considered white contemporaneously and it’s only now that their descendants consider themselves white and rail about all the non white immigeants).

pandaman 11mo ago
I would not be using the "natives were wiped out by foreign conquerors" argument in support of uncontrolled (or any other kind) immigration, if I were you.
like_any_other 11mo ago
So the Americans deserve it? Well, thank you for your honesty.
like_any_other 11mo ago
> Although, ironically, a lot of those Europeans were also not considered white contemporaneously and it’s only now that their descendants consider themselves white and rail about all the non white immigeants This is outright false: https://www.academia.edu/69843076/The_Becoming_White_Thesis_Revisited https://www.academia.edu/69843076/The_Becoming_White_Thesis_... In fact it is so false, that 8 Irishmen signed the US Declaration of Independence: https://www.irishpost.com/life-style/meet-8-irishmen-signed-us-declaration-independence-july-4-1776-156950 https://www.irishpost.com/life-style/meet-8-irishmen-signed-... The myth was likely started by Noel Ignatiev's "How the Irish Became White" book [1]. The same Noel Ignatiev that co-founded the "Race Traitor" journal, "which promoted the idea that "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity"". Who would have thought such an unbiased and objective academic would be falsifying history. It's an exercise for the reader how something both so unbelievable, and so easily falsified, could persist for so long in academia. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev

ivraatiems 11mo ago

> So do you just not believe in the national right to self-determination, to decide who may live among them? Do you also not believe in this right for Kashmir [5,6] or Palestine? On a personal moral/philosophical level, I think lines on a map which we call "nations" are a foolish way to decide who is allowed to go where and do what. So from first principles, I don't accept the framing. I don't think "national" right to self-determination is a meaningful or valid term. It exists in practice but it is not valuable except in terms of pragmatism/realpolitik. Therefore, I advocate for immigration policies which are much more focused on helping people and bettering society around me than on any nation-based concept of identity. That doesn't mean I want to bring more people who would hurt others into my society. But it does mean I don't care about whether the people who come in are "like me" in some meaningful way. (That doesn't mean I don't act like nations exist or agree that they do, just that my ideal world probably would not include them in that way. Nor does it mean I don't think national lines ever echo the lines of societies or that I'm an anarchist who doesn't believe in governments. I just don't accept the idea that "this person lives on this side of the border" is a meaningful way to decide if they get to live in a place or not.) Also, it sounds like what you consider "national" framing is actually racial framing. Given that you spend a lot of time talking about white people in a nation that has never been just white people, is that not correct?

like_any_other 11mo ago
> lines on a map which we call "nations" are a foolish way to decide who is allowed to go where and do what. A nation is a group of people. What you're referring to is territory that belongs to a country. > But it does mean I don't care about whether the people who come in are "like me" in some meaningful way. That's great if you don't value national identity or the differences between nations in any way, but many people do value those. They (myself included) wish to see their and other groups retain their distinctions, and not be homogenized into a globally indistinguishable mush, which is what you propose. > Also, it sounds like what you consider "national" framing is actually racial framing. That is what "national" means [1]. The "people who share a passport" alternative meaning is a very recent redefinition. [1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation
11mo ago

raw_anon_1111 11mo ago

Why are you so concerned with White people being the minority? Does the US somehow have a history of not treading minorities equally or something that I’m not aware of?

akimbostrawman 11mo ago

Careful with the facts you are committing serious wrong think