Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arun gera who wrote (132482)	3/22/2017 7:56:49 PM
From: louel	Respond to of 219431

The point is, choose good quality immigrants who are legal.> That is exactly what Trump has said all along. There is nothing wrong with Immigration of any race, through legal channels. It allows for vetting not only to screen out the criminal element. But also to screen for those who are able to contribute the most to the country's needs. Legal immigration also serves to keep a desired ethnic balance. Without proper ethnic diversification provides a melting pot of cultures. The most desired attributes of each are easily adopted by the majority. While undesirable habits fade. In turn the country does not become simply an extension of a foreign land. But rather constantly evolves into a culture all it's own. To witness an example of this blending in US and Canada. Just look at the multitude of restaurants or eateries which specialize in ethnic cuisine immigrants have brought with them. Or ethnic foods in grocery stores which without the different cultures would not be there. Nothing wrong with Mexican, East Indian, Chinese, German, Irish or Malaysians They just need to when taking up residence in another country. Do it through a legal entry process.

To: arun gera who wrote (132482)	3/22/2017 8:08:28 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Recommended By bart13 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219431

That was Great Britain deporting undesirables rather than Australia choosing them as immigrants. There's a difference. Australia, and New Zealand, were just provinces of Great Britain then. New Zealand was part of New South Wales. It was only in the 20th century that they became autonomous and still have Queen Elizabeth II as sovereign. It was only a few years ago that New Zealand finally abandoned the Privy Council as final legal arbiter - and there is even now a residual link in some particular instances. <<Talking about Australia and good quality immigrants. en.wikipedia.org >> Norfolk Island was a special place established by Queen Victoria as sort of independent. Criminals were sent there, but by the 1850s it was abandoned. Then the Pitcairners were moved there [some returned to Pitcairn]. My great great grandfather Thomas Rossiter his wife and children went there to help run it from about 1856 [the store and as a teacher]. They had 11 children, mostly born on Norfolk Island. Big families back then. Presumably you don't convict descendants for the crimes of their ancestors. Those deported criminals died a century ago or more. None of them are still there. Moslems are a different kettle of fish because the Moslem criminals derive their criminality from their jihad conquest and death to blasphemers ideology. Importing them will maintain the criminal ideology in many or even most of their descendants. Some fake Moslems deny the Koranic edicts to jihad and are therefore apostates, but enough of them are true to their ideology that they remain a big problem. Spend much time in London, Antwerp, Holland etc and one soon bumps up against the problem. Mqurice