The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => News => Topic started by: johnwk on July 27, 2018, 12:25:17 pm
-
See: GOP-led House committee rebuffs Trump administration on immigrant asylum claim policy (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-led-house-committee-rebuffs-trump-administration-on-immigrant-asylum-claim-policy/2018/07/26/3c52ed52-911a-11e8-9b0d-749fb254bc3d_story.html)
July 26, 2018
â€A GOP-led House committee delivered a rebuke of the Trump administration’s immigration policies this week — an unusual bipartisan move that may ultimately spell trouble for must-pass spending measures later this year.
The powerful House Appropriations Committee passed a measure that would essentially reverse Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s guidance earlier this year that immigrants will not generally be allowed to use claims of domestic or gang violence to qualify for asylum.â€
Keep in mind the Obama Administration adopted a new policy allowing victims of domestic violence in Central America to seek asylum in the United States. Jeff Sessions reversed that insane policy which ultimately would allow tens of millions of foreigners from poverty stricken countries to flood into the United States and become a new tax and social burden for American citizens to deal with.
In effect, Obama’s asylum policy change created a backdoor open borders situation not approved by Congress, a policy change which would make any wall along our southern border totally meaningless, as this new category of asylum seekers would defeat any wall built and allow the worlds poverty stricken to pour over America’s borders which is the very reason Jeff Sessions reversed the policy!
And now, just as the House is to go on a break, Fifth Column Republicans join open border Fifth Column Democrats to undermine President Trump’s immigration policy which is designed to promote America’s best interests and her general welfare.
The question is, will those who realize the devastating social and financial consequences which unregulated immigration can inflict on a nation, make their feelings known this coming election?
JWK
There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving country than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into that country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.
-
.
This backdoor open borders crap has been tied to a spending bill which intentionally complicates things in a dramatic way. This tactic has been repeatedly used by Fifth Column activists in Congress to get their way. And it has worked every time, even under Trump!
See: Trump Signs $1.3 Trillion Spending Bill, Averting A Government Shutdown (https://www.npr.org/2018/03/23/596401989/trump-threatens-veto-of-spending-deal)
Every Republican on this committee needs to be punished!
JWK
-
It should be abundantly clear to anyone paying even a modicum of attention that there are very few in Washington representing the interests of the people who elect them! They are, for the most part, all in the pockets of K Street and simply follow the orders they receive from their masters!
-
It should be abundantly clear to anyone paying even a modicum of attention that there are very few in Washington representing the interests of the people who elect them! They are, for the most part, all in the pockets of K Street and simply follow the orders they receive from their masters!
I do not know what else can be done - legally - to get their attention.
-
I do not know what else can be done - legally - to get their attention.
How about we primary their azzes at the earliest opportunity!
Edit to add And stop letting the Washington establishment tell us who we can elect to represent us!
-
Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) is the only Republican named in the article, that is infavor of this.
I wonder who the other Republicans are?
-
Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) is the only Republican named in the article, that is infavor of this.
I wonder who the other Republicans are?
I can guess, the rest of the RINOS. McCAIN, MARCO RUBIO, FLAKE, L.GRAHAM, probably Paul Ryan, some others,,WHO it has been documented, all receive money from SOROS. McCAIN since 2001. Senator Heck, in Nevada. A LOT are paid by SOROS. CLINTOONS & OBAMA.
-
We had amnesty in 1986, on the condition the border is closed. Demon-rats reneged. Obama open borders for 8 years. Suing states, who follow federal law. AZ. Alaska. Joe Arpaio. Since 1986, we have increased ILLEGALS. 10 fold. Always a "reason" to come here, illegal. Fix your own country! You turd world country people, bring all that same, filth with you. Assimilate or leave. Dirtying up America!
OK, one more time. Posting in GENERAL. NOT TO ANYONE IN PARTICULAR.
-
Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) is the only Republican named in the article, that is infavor of this.
I wonder who the other Republicans are?
As I understand it, they took a voice vote, not a roll call vote, so they can come back and say they were against the measure. These are real scumbags and need to be punished.
JWK
-
I can guess, the rest of the RINOS. McCAIN, MARCO RUBIO, FLAKE, L.GRAHAM, probably Paul Ryan, some others,,WHO it has been documented, all receive money from SOROS. McCAIN since 2001. Senator Heck, in Nevada. A LOT are paid by SOROS. CLINTOONS & OBAMA.
You will could be right, eventually, but this is still in the House, for now.
It hasn't reached the Senate yet.
Ryan would be the only House member on your list.
-
I can’t even communicate the level of rage I feel over stuff like this. Our leaders are outright selling us out, right under our noses.
Any politician that has ever voted for mass immigration is a traitor in my book.
-
I can’t even communicate the level of rage I feel over stuff like this. Our leaders are outright selling us out, right under our noses.
Any politician that has ever voted for mass immigration is a traitor in my book.
It is maddening.
When we the people speak out and say that illegal immigration is one of our top concerns, and we just get flatly ignored, we no longer have a functioning representative republic.
If government routinely ignores the people that elect them, opens the door for the leftist idea of socialism to take root.
After all, they could say, we should be used to it by now.
No one that I am aware of, on this forum, ever voted for a nanny state.
-
No one that I am aware of, on this forum, ever voted for a nanny state.
No American citizen, in the history of this country, has ever voted for mass immigration. It was foisted upon us by politicians that wanted to either virtue signal, or get cheap labor.
If you explicitiy ask anyone if they want to import millions of people or have open borders, it will be explicitly rejected by the vast majority, yet somehow we still got it.
-
I can’t even communicate the level of rage I feel over stuff like this. Our leaders are outright selling us out, right under our noses.
Any politician that has ever voted for mass immigration is a traitor in my book.
Keep in mind, under the Obama Administration and his new domestic violence category for asylum seekers, asylum applications in the United States increased by 1,675 percent! LINK (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/21/donald-trump/1700-percent-increase-asylum-claims/)
And now, after our AG reverses Obama’s backdoor open border policy, our very own Republican Controlled Committee proposes legislation to overrule Jeff Sessions' action which reversed Obama's policy.
What is freaken going on? Is it not obvious we have a Fifth Column infestation in the Republican Party leadership which works hand in hand with our socialist democrat leadership?
JWK
There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving country than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into that country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.
-
Good comments by everyone. You are correct, those RINOS are senators. I was not paying attention. I am sure there are RINO'S in the HOUSE,,too.
-
Several sound chagrined and surprised by the
R Senators, yet shouldn't be for a simple reason.
The GOP has never been a party of conservative
principle, not for a day, since Fremont in 1856.
But that is a post for another time.
-------------
There is an enduring Principle of International Law
that has governed immigration since the Treaty of
Westphalia in 1648. Promoted by the Vatican,
it gave birth to the concept of Sovereign Right which
was defined based on the following:
Q. Who decides who may enter any nation/state
having clearly defined/recognized borders?
A. The citizens of that nation/state. As such, immigrants,
be they guest workers (Italian stone masons building
French Cathedrals in the High Middle Ages) or those
seeking permanent status, have no right of entry.
Sovereign Right to accept/deny entry resides only
w/the citizens of the nation/state.
When was the first/last time anyone heard this principle
articulated by the frauds and hustlers who infest DC???
-
As I understand it, they took a voice vote, not a roll call vote, so they can come back and say they were against the measure. These are real scumbags and need to be punished.
JWK
Hi, I tried to do some research. Didn't go well. The problem is the probable DEMOCRAT journalist. That one Rino mentioned, is probably the only one who supported this. Going by memory. His mom is social worker, for DOMESTIC abuse, so when these people ask for asylum under that reason, he supports this. That would be ALL TURD WORLD COUNTRIES! It is the headline that is the problem. Not on you! I need to copy. I'll be back.
Back. Ok, this is WASHINGTON POST. Not known for being honest. This how the headline should read;
Republican controlled; DEMOCRAT committee votes to grant backdoor open borders via asylum regulation
« Reply #16 on: Today at 11:24:26 PM »
It was a Dem who created this. Still has to go to senate, then President sign the bill. I hope he does not.
-
This is only in committee? There is no bill passed by the Senate and House yet...I thought this was only in the House, so I don't think those Senators voted for this. I could be wrong but it sounds like this is not becoming law anytime soon. It is reprehensible per those who voted for it.
-
This is only in committee? There is no bill passed by the Senate and House yet...I thought this was only in the House, so I don't think those Senators voted for this. I could be wrong but it sounds like this is not becoming law anytime soon. It is reprehensible per those who voted for it.
I agree. APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. Sounds like ONE republican did, as the one identified in article. And I explained, why he did, above. I suspect this story was written by Democrat "journalist", who took liberty's with the headline. A HALF TRUTH.
-
I
I can guess, the rest of the RINOS. McCAIN, MARCO RUBIO, FLAKE, L.GRAHAM, probably Paul Ryan, some others,,WHO it has been documented, all receive money from SOROS. McCAIN since 2001. Senator Heck, in Nevada. A LOT are paid by SOROS. CLINTOONS & OBAMA.
Thanks @LegalAmerican
I'm sure that took a lot of restraint on your part to NOT include Sen. Cruz in your list of perceived GOP Scoundrels.
I like You.
-
TROLL. Late to the party and not informed.
-
Cut me some slack @LegalAmerican I've been working.
-
It is reprehensible per those who voted for it.
Agreed!
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
-
Hi, I tried to do some research. Didn't go well. The problem is the probable DEMOCRAT journalist. That one Rino mentioned, is probably the only one who supported this. Going by memory. His mom is social worker, for DOMESTIC abuse, so when these people ask for asylum under that reason, he supports this. That would be ALL TURD WORLD COUNTRIES! It is the headline that is the problem. Not on you! I need to copy. I'll be back.
Back. Ok, this is WASHINGTON POST. Not known for being honest. This how the headline should read;
Republican controlled; DEMOCRAT committee votes to grant backdoor open borders via asylum regulation
« Reply #16 on: Today at 11:24:26 PM »
Posted somewhere on the site, is another article who listed
It was a Dem who created this. Still has to go to senate, then President sign the bill. I hope he does not.
Somewhere on this site, was another post that linked to another article that mentioned Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) an 3 other Republicans.
I can't remember the names off-hand, but I did note that none came from border states, which is no surprise.
-
It was so nice to have some adult discussion, for a change. Then one troll showed up. I used to have the definition of a troll.
It is someone who wants to ruin a discussion by posting inflammatory and nasty posts to disrupt the debate. Not interested in any meaningful debate. Only, to set the thread on fire. They think they are clever
.
BORING, TIRESOME.
-
It was so nice to have some adult discussion, for a change. Then one troll showed up. I used to have the definition of a troll.
It is someone who wants to ruin a discussion by posting inflammatory and nasty posts to disrupt the debate. Not interested in any meaningful debate. Only, to set the thread on fire. They think they are clever
.
BORING, TIRESOME.
I've come across decomposed bodies that are less offensive than you are.
-
I like You.
@corbe
You’re about the only one.
-
It was so nice to have some adult discussion, for a change. Then one troll showed up. I used to have the definition of a troll.
It is someone who wants to ruin a discussion by posting inflammatory and nasty posts to disrupt the debate. Not interested in any meaningful debate. Only, to set the thread on fire. They think they are clever
.
BORING, TIRESOME.
@corbe
Winning friends and influencing people.
-
I don't believe that domestic violence should serve as criteria for asylum (just leave your house, not your country), but I could support appropriate legislation that makes findings regarding pervasive gang violence in specific countries and permits consideration of asylum from folks fleeing such violence. In our anti-immigrant zeal, we should not lose our sense of humanity, folks.
I agree that Congress, not the President, is the authority for determining the broad criteria for asylum and issuing findings regarding specific countries from which asylum requests will be considered. And persons seeking asylum should be disqualified if they sneak in across the border - they must arrive at designated points of entry.
-
It was so nice to have some adult discussion, for a change. Then one troll showed up. I used to have the definition of a troll.
It is someone who wants to ruin a discussion by posting inflammatory and nasty posts to disrupt the debate. Not interested in any meaningful debate. Only, to set the thread on fire. They think they are clever
.
BORING, TIRESOME.
I'm curious, based on the post you answered to, how do you figure that the "TROLL" said anything " inflammatory and nasty"?
Just a piece of friendly advice:
A lack of a sense of humor is no way to do through life, not one worth a darn, in my book.
If everything is a major crisis or a huge ordeal, it loses its meaning, than nothing is a major crisis or a huge ordeal.
-
No American citizen, in the history of this country, has ever voted for mass immigration. It was foisted upon us by politicians that wanted to either virtue signal, or get cheap labor.
If you explicitiy ask anyone if they want to import millions of people or have open borders, it will be explicitly rejected by the vast majority, yet somehow we still got it.
No one is disputing that a nation has the sovereign right to determine its own immigration policies, and to protect its borders. But this nation was built on immigration; you yourself are probably the descendant of immigrants. It is rational to support immigration that spurs economic growth and, in appropriate situations, permits asylum seekers to find a home in this generous and prosperous nation.
We will see if the extreme nativism and implicit racism of Trump's rejection of traditional immigration policy carries the day. It is, to be sure, very different than the GOP of my day, which saw immigration as a net benefit. We are a sovereign nation and we can choose to be welcoming or choose to close our borders and hunker down against the rest of the world.
Note that the foregoing has nothing to do with the question of ILLEGAL immigration. We can all agree that the law must be enforced, and rules followed. But there are sound reasons to encourage more legal immigration; our economy will grind to a halt without it. As for asylum, that is a question of our humanity. I advocate a generous policy that is not an open door, but recognizes that our policies (e.g., our inability to curb demand for illegal drugs that has created the market satisfied by violent gangs) have created real victims in some parts of the world.
-
No one is disputing that a nation has the sovereign right to determine its own immigration policies, and to protect its borders.
Laughable on its face. Time and time again politicians have chosen to ignore the clear will of the voters on this issue, in favor of other political & monied interests.
So yes, obviously that right is being disputed since this country was founded 'by the people for the people'.
The rest of your statement is globalist claptrap.
-
How about we primary their azzes at the earliest opportunity!
Edit to add And stop letting the Washington establishment tell us who we can elect to represent us!
We keep saying this online but talking with people who run party precincts, they can't even get people to volunteer to go door to door and man phone banks. Precinct work is some of the most important work to actually do this, yet people don't step up to the plate.
Right now, all the local precincts here on the Republican side are run by little old ladies using it as social clubs.
People like to say something must be done, but sadly, when it gets down to doing something, everyone seems to wait for 'someone else' to do it.
-
The rest of your statement is globalist claptrap.
There is a middle ground between "globalism" and implicitly racist nativism. That is the ground that a viable GOP must occupy. Border protection and enforcement. Real, enforced sanctions against employers who hire illegals. Sensible legal immigration that encourages economic growth. Asylum policies that reflect our values as a nation.
-
There is a middle ground between "globalism" and implicitly racist nativism. That is the ground that a viable GOP must occupy. Border protection and enforcement. Real, enforced sanctions against employers who hire illegals. Sensible legal immigration that encourages economic growth. Asylum policies that reflect our values as a nation.
You'd do your argument a huge service if you'd leave the 'racism' charge out of it. Flinging it around make you look unserious.
-
We keep saying this online but talking with people who run party precincts, they can't even get people to volunteer to go door to door and man phone banks. Precinct work is some of the most important work to actually do this, yet people don't step up to the plate.
Right now, all the local precincts here on the Republican side are run by little old ladies using it as social clubs.
People like to say something must be done, but sadly, when it gets down to doing something, everyone seems to wait for 'someone else' to do it.
@AbaraXas
Tell me about it! I was there for the better part of forty years!
-
You'd do your argument a huge service if you'd leave the 'racism' charge out of it. Flinging it around make you look unserious.
As an historical matter, American know-nothingism has always been rooted in implicit racism or anti-religious bias. Always. What once was opposition to immigration from Ireland morphed into opposition to immigration from southern Europe. Today's nativism is rooted in opposition to immigration by Hispanics, or Muslims.
It is unserious to refuse to recognize that anti-immigrant nativism is motivated in large part by fear of folks who are culturally different. And over the course of American history, legal immigrants and their descendants have successfully managed to assimilate and become part of the American diaspora. Always.
-
We keep saying this online but talking with people who run party precincts, they can't even get people to volunteer to go door to door and man phone banks. Precinct work is some of the most important work to actually do this, yet people don't step up to the plate.
Right now, all the local precincts here on the Republican side are run by little old ladies using it as social clubs.
People like to say something must be done, but sadly, when it gets down to doing something, everyone seems to wait for 'someone else' to do it.
@AbaraXas
After what transpired in 2016 in Cleveland at the GOP Convention it just further disillusioned many, such as I, that our efforts were all for naught. Even turning off our microphones, Priebus, Manafort and Trump made that abundantly clear.
Conservatives are not needed or wanted in Trump's GOP.
-
@AbaraXas
After what transpired in 2016 in Cleveland at the GOP Convention it just further disillusioned many, such as I, that our efforts were all for naught. Even turning off our microphones, Priebus, Manafort and Trump made that abundantly clear.
Conservatives are not needed or wanted in Trump's GOP.
You could say the party apparatus wasn't interested in what the base wanted, that's for sure.
We see evidence of this in every congressional vote, like what they are doing in this committee now.
I'm half surprised they didn't try to manipulate the whole primary process, like the Dems did for Hillary.
At least they let the results stand with no "Super Delegates", I'll give them that.
-
As an historical matter, American know-nothingism has always been rooted in implicit racism or anti-religious bias. Always. What once was opposition to immigration from Ireland morphed into opposition to immigration from southern Europe. Today's nativism is rooted in opposition to immigration by Hispanics, or Muslims.
It is unserious to refuse to recognize that anti-immigrant nativism is motivated in large part by fear of folks who are culturally different. And over the course of American history, legal immigrants and their descendants have successfully managed to assimilate and become part of the American diaspora. Always.
Not sure what your point is in bringing up what personal motives might inform a person's opinions on immigration policy. Are you saying that those Americans who have a 'fear of those culturally different' should have no voice in the legislation? Perhaps they should be prevented from voting?
-
@AbaraXas
After what transpired in 2016 in Cleveland at the GOP Convention it just further disillusioned many, such as I, that our efforts were all for naught. Even turning off our microphones, Priebus, Manafort and Trump made that abundantly clear.
Conservatives are not needed or wanted in Trump's GOP.
There were delegates and attendees who had personal conversations with Manafort about their non-vocal support. Some were bribed (what can we give you for your vocal support), others threatened. Some of these were unbound, others were bound but were just not 'cheering' or showing enough loyalty (they expected more than just their duty, they wanted cheerleaders).
There was a big to-do around Trump waiving that 'gays for Trump' flag, it was the condition for one delegate to give his vocal support (versus just bound vote). The PTBs gave them that carrot. Another delegate from New Mexico (if I recall correctly) was told if he didn't cheer enough, he could kiss his own office run goodbye.
-
Not sure what your point is in bringing up what personal motives might inform a person's opinions on immigration policy. Are you saying that those Americans who have a 'fear of those culturally different' should have no voice in the legislation? Perhaps they should be prevented from voting?
Of course not. But I think we cannot be naïve and ignore the history of know-nothingism in this country and the implicitly racist/anti-religious motivations of many of its adherents.
Again - I am not disagreeing with you about the need to have an effective immigration policy that secures the borders and requires prospective immigrants to follow the rules. But you condemned me as spouting globalist claptrap. And I'll repeat my response:
There is a middle ground between "globalism" and implicitly racist nativism. That is the ground that a viable GOP must occupy. Border protection and enforcement. Real, enforced sanctions against employers who hire illegals. Sensible legal immigration that encourages economic growth. Asylum policies that reflect our values as a nation.
-
Of course not. But I think we cannot be naïve and ignore the history of know-nothingism in this country and the implicitly racist/anti-religious motivations of many of its adherents.
Again - I am not disagreeing with you about the need to have an effective immigration policy that secures the borders and requires prospective immigrants to follow the rules. But you condemned me as spouting globalist claptrap. And I'll repeat my response:
IMO there is nothing wrong with not wanting your home inundated with those who are culturally different, with the stresses that imposes on society, and forming your opinion on immigration policy accordingly. There are good, legitimate reasons based upon evidence at hand for believing this and those who have these opinions shouldn't be made to feel immoral for it. Thats just a cheap rhetorical ploy.
A much more honest approach would be to explain why we shouldn't believe that our current immigration policy isn't leading to a form of balkanization which in turn will ultimately lead to further erosion of our individual liberties and necessitate a far more authoritarian form of government than we are suffering now.
-
IMO there is nothing wrong with not wanting your home inundated with those who are culturally different, with the stresses that imposes on society, and forming your opinion on immigration policy accordingly. There are good, legitimate reasons based upon evidence at hand for believing this and those who have these opinions shouldn't be made to feel immoral for it. Thats just a cheap rhetorical ploy.
A much more honest approach would be to explain why we shouldn't believe that our current immigration policy isn't leading to a form of balkanization which in turn will ultimately lead to further erosion of our individual liberties and necessitate a far more authoritarian form of government than we are suffering now.
If it's a "cheap rhetorical ploy" to view anti-immigrant nativism as implicitly racist, it is one based on the motivations of such nativism throughout American history. And it is a cheap rhetorical ploy to label those of us who want robust legal immigration to ensure a growing, prosperous economy, or who favor considering asylum requests from those fleeing gang violence spawned by our government's failed drug policies, as "globalists" who favor "open borders".
We should both be able to agree that we need sensible immigration policies that promote the interests of our sovereign nation, and that such policies, once enacted, be enforced.
-
If it's a "cheap rhetorical ploy" to view anti-immigrant nativism as implicitly racist, it is one based on the motivations of such nativism throughout American history. And it is a cheap rhetorical ploy to label those of us who want robust legal immigration to ensure a growing, prosperous economy, or who favor considering asylum requests from those fleeing gang violence spawned by our government's failed drug policies, as "globalists" who favor "open borders".
We should both be able to agree that we need sensible immigration policies that promote the interests of our sovereign nation, and that such policies, once enacted, be enforced.
Playing the 'racist' card is the cheap rhetorical ploy and a transparent one at that. Today's Scarlet Letter.
However, I don't mind being considered a nativist. Not in the least.
-
Playing the 'racist' card is the cheap rhetorical ploy and a transparent one at that. Today's Scarlet Letter.
However, I don't mind being considered a nativist. Not in the least.
So what exactly are the attributes of "cultural difference" that make you so averse to immigration? Do you disagree that, historically, most immigrant groups have assimilated quite satisfactorily after the first generation? I'm not trying to get at your objections to current immigration policies (e.g., so-called chain immigration vs. merit-based immigration), or the government's scandalous unwillingness to enforce the law. Rather, I am trying to vet your apparent claim that unwanted "cultural differences" aren't rooted in racism or anti-religious bias.
-
So what exactly are the attributes of "cultural difference" that make you so averse to immigration? Do you disagree that, historically, most immigrant groups have assimilated quite satisfactorily after the first generation? I'm not trying to get at your objections to current immigration policies (e.g., so-called chain immigration vs. merit-based immigration), or the government's scandalous unwillingness to enforce the law. Rather, I am trying to vet your apparent claim that unwanted "cultural differences" aren't rooted in racism or anti-religious bias.
This country has done a remarkable job at assimilating its immigrants in the past. However, with the growth of the welfare state in conjunction with progressive ideologies devaluing our traditions, values and heritage, political expedients of the democrat party (or the state) AND the increase of immigration from regions more and more foreign and antithetical to our own obviously we are doing an increasingly less efficient job of it.
As I've said before, if you had spent the last 30 years in California instead Pennsylvania I suspect you would understand exactly what my concerns are. Its clear to me that immigrants are changing the USA as much if not more than we're changing them. I'll admit I resent it. No one I know was asked if this is what they wanted - DC decided all on its own.
Now explain to me why its necessary the USA continually absorb more and more immigrants with traditions antithetical to our own? After all, I advocate keeping the status quo - you seemingly want change. Its more incumbent upon you to explain your reasons why the US needs to be demographically transformed.
-
IMO there is nothing wrong with not wanting your home inundated with those who are culturally different, with the stresses that imposes on society,
This is scientifically supportable, in a psychology study of "disgust."
See Jordan B. Peterson, and Jonathon Haidt, Stephen Pinker
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfo41kfACY.#)
-
This is scientifically supportable, in a psychology study of "disgust."
See Jordan B. Peterson, and Jonathon Haidt, Stephen Pinker
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfo41kfACY.#)
Yikes, this'll take some time to digest. At first blush this explanation seems rather skewed toward the anthropological with little consideration given to the rationality, let alone morality of a given issue. I didn't really appreciate the Hitler reference either :bullie smokin:
-
Yikes, this'll take some time to digest. At first blush this explanation seems rather skewed toward the anthropological with little consideration given to the rationality, let alone morality of a given issue. I didn't really appreciate the Hitler reference either :bullie smokin:
Forget about Hitler. These are top guys in the field, decidedly not politically biased, aiming only to learn how the human mind works.
My takeaway is: What is usually dismissed as "racism" is actually deeply entrenched human instinct and behavior. At the level of DNA and Epigenetics.
Their work is NOT justification for racism. It IS explanation of human behavior.
-
Forget about Hitler. These are top guys in the field, decidedly not politically biased, aiming only to learn how the human mind works.
My takeaway is: What is usually dismissed as "racism" is actually deeply entrenched human instinct and behavior. At the level of DNA and Epigenetics.
Their work is NOT justification for racism. It IS explanation of human behavior.
I understand completely. I guess I kind of bristle when someone claims my opposition to rampant immigration, for example, has anything at all to do with my unwillingness to 'process more information'. I have good practical reasons - if I didn't believe that I'd like to think that I'd be open to new influences & info as well as the next liberal.
That said, I get this is a scholarly explanation with an anthropological focus, rather than the ethical focus.
-
Check into New Hampshire, that now wants to get rid of whites for hispanics.
--------------
July 30, 2018
New Hampshire working hard to make state less white
By Ed Straker
New Hampshire has a problem. A big one. The state is 94% white. Business leaders claim they have trouble filling jobs, so they are trying to attract people to the state – blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities. Just not white people.
They claim that Hispanics don't feel welcome because most people in New Hampshire speak English.
Unwelcoming? Photo via Wikipedia.
"I went from being able to speak Spanish every day to not speaking Spanish at all because there wasn't anybody to speak Spanish to," said Mrs. Celentano [a trainer who moved from Lynn, Mass. to New Hampshire[.] ... "The only person I spoke Spanish with was a cleaning lady and she moved back to Colombia."
A region of the country is considered inhospitable if everyone speaks English. So why is Mexico so inhospitable to English-speakers? And El Salvador and Honduras? Are they not inclusive societies?
It has also posed problems for employers in these states, who find that their homogeneity can be a barrier to recruiting and retaining workers of different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds.
If minorities don't feel comfortable around white people, why is it the problem of the white people?
The issue prompted about 100 business leaders, government officials and members of nonprofit organizations to meet Thursday to search for ways that New Hampshire – which is 94 percent white – might lure other racial and ethnic groups, as well as younger people.
Will Arvelo, New Hampshire's director of economic development, said the gathering appeared to be the first broad-based effort in New England, if not the country, to focus on how to diversify an entire state.
The project grew out of informal talks over the last few years among a racially diverse coalition of people, including Mrs. Celentano, who say they want to change New Hampshire's demographics.
The way they are so honest about what they are doing, so blatant, shows how far the culture has tilted. Making the country browner or blacker, at the expense of white people, is seen as a desirable goal. What if we started a program in California and New York to change their demographics as well – to make them more white? Would anyone object?
For Jerri Anne Boggis, executive director of the Black Heritage Trail of New Hampshire, in Portsmouth, N.H., the participation of major companies is a sign of the urgency of the mission.
"It's not just the social justice groups that are doing this, it's the businesses," she said. "We're talking about the economic engine of our state, and we can't move forward without them." ... The group is launching a program to reward businesses who hire non-white ("a more diverse array of") workers.
It's a very public form of discrimination against white people.
How much longer are white people going to take being treated like second-class citizens?
1. White people are discriminated against in schools, for jobs in the private sector, and especially for jobs in government.
2. Whites are subject to multiple campaigns to dilute their numbers in America under the code words of "diversity" and "inclusiveness."
3. Universities have black studies and Hispanic studies, but white studies are considered racist (unless they are critical of "whiteness"). Why?
4. Black and Hispanic caucuses in just about every field are considered progressive, but white caucuses are considered racist. Why?
5. Black men can say "n‑‑‑‑‑" until they are blue in the face, but if the founder of Papa John's says someone else said the word, he's out of a job. And we desperately need to investigate to find out if Sean Spicer said the N-word when he was 14 years old.
6. Whites are racist, even if they don't know it ("unconscious racism") and must sit through racial sensitivity training as if they were criminals.
7. Minorities are vastly overrepresented in the advertising, film, and television world because of their perceived superior virtue.
We live in a country with a profound hostility to white people, working actively to reduce their numbers and influence through open borders and discrimination. White people are too afraid to say anything about it. I think nothing will change until they stop being afraid and speak out.
Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.
New Hampshire has a problem. A big one. The state is 94% white. Business leaders claim they have trouble filling jobs, so they are trying to attract people to the state – blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities. Just not white people.
They claim that Hispanics don't feel welcome because most people in New Hampshire speak English.
Unwelcoming? Photo via Wikipedia.
"I went from being able to speak Spanish every day to not speaking Spanish at all because there wasn't anybody to speak Spanish to," said Mrs. Celentano [a trainer who moved from Lynn, Mass. to New Hampshire[.] ... "The only person I spoke Spanish with was a cleaning lady and she moved back to Colombia."
A region of the country is considered inhospitable if everyone speaks English. So why is Mexico so inhospitable to English-speakers? And El Salvador and Honduras? Are they not inclusive societies?
It has also posed problems for employers in these states, who find that their homogeneity can be a barrier to recruiting and retaining workers of different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds.
If minorities don't feel comfortable around white people, why is it the problem of the white people?
The issue prompted about 100 business leaders, government officials and members of nonprofit organizations to meet Thursday to search for ways that New Hampshire – which is 94 percent white – might lure other racial and ethnic groups, as well as younger people.
Will Arvelo, New Hampshire's director of economic development, said the gathering appeared to be the first broad-based effort in New England, if not the country, to focus on how to diversify an entire state.
The project grew out of informal talks over the last few years among a racially diverse coalition of people, including Mrs. Celentano, who say they want to change New Hampshire's demographics.
The way they are so honest about what they are doing, so blatant, shows how far the culture has tilted. Making the country browner or blacker, at the expense of white people, is seen as a desirable goal. What if we started a program in California and New York to change their demographics as well – to make them more white? Would anyone object?
For Jerri Anne Boggis, executive director of the Black Heritage Trail of New Hampshire, in Portsmouth, N.H., the participation of major companies is a sign of the urgency of the mission.
"It's not just the social justice groups that are doing this, it's the businesses," she said. "We're talking about the economic engine of our state, and we can't move forward without them." ... The group is launching a program to reward businesses who hire non-white ("a more diverse array of") workers.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20) ... z5MypGtHBb
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook