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.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ron who wrote (79905)	6/27/2018 1:33:26 PM
From: Katelew	Respond to of 363233

<< But since white people are now dying in the U.S. faster than they are reproducing, the racial aspect looms large in the minds of some. >> The racial aspect looms only because Democrats keep pushing this strawman on us. Consider this: White people have always been, throughout recorded history, been a tiny little minority of the world's population. Thus demographics dictate that most of the time a foreign group tried to push in and take the land and wealth of a white community, that foreign group was apt to be people of color. Democrats make it seem that white people automatically reject anyone who doesn't look like them, who has a different skin color---as though appearance was enough reason to keep people out. The truth is that the whole world is tribal. People of color have historically fought with each other, with one groups considering itself superior to the other group. Yes, white people will disappear over time. Their skin, hair and eye colors will be genetically overwhelmed and all people will become some shade of brown. But that isn't going to end tribalism. Instead of appearance, we'll just evolve into social class distinctions. We're already there for the most part even though liberals keep trying to get mileage out of racial demarcations. How about you not looking to the past so much? Instead, look at current facts and trends and then express what solutions you could support going forward. That will require that you know what Trump is actually saying and proposing, not what the media says he says. For starters, Trump has for years consistently backed a common-sense immigration plan. And he has been saying for months that we need additional immigrant labor in this strong economy. He believes the country as a whole, both native and immigrant, will be better off if we choose who to allow in. He believes the country as a whole, both native and immigrant, will be safer and more prosperous if all immigrants can be thoroughly vetted and we select from societies that are known to assimilate more easily.

To: Ron who wrote (79905)	6/27/2018 2:23:16 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 363233

-- Whether or not we want immigrants-- not an issue until Trump. Generally we wanted immigrants,with some exceptions during national security fights like WWII. It certainly seemed so. I don't recall a lot of active attention to the question. Over the last decade or so there was chatter about stealing jobs but that was always countered with the bit about jobs Americans won't do, which seemed to satisfy the question until just recently. It would be nice if there were a studied answer to that question rather than just various people's sense of things. If we're going to have immigration, the idea of the melting pot always made sense to me, perhaps because my family was among the fairly recently melted. I do think that there is such a thing as too much immigration when the melting doesn't happen. National, religious, or ethnic stovepipes are not a constructive thing. We have enough divisiveness in other arenas. Groups don't integrate when either their members are not welcomed into the stew or when there are so many of a group that they can be an island of their own. The former occurs when the newcomers are too different for the purists to stomach. The latter may already be the case with the vast numbers of incoming Latin American working class, lovely as they may be individually or in smaller numbers. I say perhaps because they have spread out all over the country, which lessens the concentration, hence the island-making impact. I think we are best off with smaller numbers from many different places and classes. There are arguments to be made for and against more vs fewer or which kind. But we don't talk about such things so there's not much chance of a consensus. All we do is fuss about the mess we have on our hands. I'm pretty sure I wrote a post or three saying some of the same things nearly a couple of decades ago.