Are Illegal Immigrants Good Or Bad For Economy?

[X. Benedict]

If the Ottoman Empire is the best example of a successful multicultural society, I've won this debate. Man for man, the Ottoman Empire's WWI effort wasn't comparable to nations like England, France, or the U.S. Its early successes were due to unity among the Turks; just as the British Empire's strength came from unity among the British.

Horseshit. It was due to the Ottoman's tolerance of minorities and the professional army of the non-Turkish Jannisary.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If the Ottoman Empire is the best example of a successful multicultural society, I've won this debate. Man for man, the Ottoman Empire's WWI effort wasn't comparable to nations like England, France, or the U.S. Its early successes were due to unity among the Turks; just as the British Empire's strength came from unity among the British.

 

The Ottomans were INCREDIBLY successful and at the head of an Empire that existed for three times the centuries out country has.

 

For the longest time, they were the most advanced European nation by a LONG shot.

[Ramius]

You've made a number of good points in this post. Though Bush is a bad president, you're right to say Wilson was a worse one. But I disagree with your claim that the nation was more divided in 1917 than it is today. WWI was a very expensive war in terms of men--our losses were in the hundreds of thousands. Both Iraq wars together are a pinprick in comparison. The heavy toll of WWI made internal differences and weaknesses come to the surface.

 

Got it. So the diversity in the US was ok because it was white european diversity. But now that the brown people are taking up residence, it needs to stop.

[DC Tom]

Lawyers sometimes say that when the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. And when both the law and the facts are against you, scream and call the other side a bunch of names. Your use of name-calling to the exclusion of intelligent debate is quite telling.

 

And yet, here you are trying to argue that racially pure societies are stroneger than racially mixed ones. Given that you've already espoused eugenics as a way of improving the species, you're only a hairs-breadth away from the racial purity theories of Alfred Rosenberg.

 

But I'm not up to another long, drawn-out song-and-dance with you, so let's just cut to the chase: should races be allowed to intermarry?

[molson_golden2002]

You've made a number of good points in this post. Though Bush is a bad president, you're right to say Wilson was a worse one. But I disagree with your claim that the nation was more divided in 1917 than it is today. WWI was a very expensive war in terms of men--our losses were in the hundreds of thousands. Both Iraq wars together are a pinprick in comparison. The heavy toll of WWI made internal differences and weaknesses come to the surface.

Several things here. [Why do I always have several things?] Anyway. Not playing gotcha, but can you post a link to several hundred thousand? Most people say 117,000 dead Americans, but there was an army report from 1930[?] or there abouts saying that with deaths from the war it was 400,000 dead.

 

I disagree about casualties relating to internal differences. The repression happened as we went to war, before casualties occurred. So, perhaps, the casulaties Americans saw in European armies caused a backlash before the war, ok.

 

But America was something like 1/3 foreign born or born of immigrants at the time. New York state certaintly was. That's not true today. On top of that, the Germans had old communities that were very seperated from the rest of society, Kaiser Town in Buffalo, for example. The Irish were an older immigrant group that tended to stay sepertaed, also.

 

And the Ottoman comparison I do not like because American is very different in the fact we have an economy that allows for people to assimilate easier. It keeps people busy and relatively happy.

 

My point is, we were much more diverse and divided in 1917 than we are now

[Orton's Arm]

Got it. So the diversity in the US was ok because it was white european diversity. But now that the brown people are taking up residence, it needs to stop.

Thanks for once again being too stupid to unduhstand the most basic of concepts. When people who are very similar intermarry, you can still have a unified nation. That's the case whether it's people of different African tribes doing the intermarrying, or Norse marrying Danes and Saxons in England, or people from one Chinese province marrying those from another province.

[Taro T]

Thanks for once again being too stupid to unduhstand the most basic of concepts. When people who are very similar intermarry, you can still have a unified nation. That's the case whether it's people of different African tribes doing the intermarrying, or Norse marrying Danes and Saxons in England, or people from one Chinese province marrying those from another province.

Now I'm confused. It reads as if you are stating that having Americans of differing ethnic stocks intermarry won't lead to a unified nation but having separate pockets of pure _pick an ethnicity here_ will lead to a unified nation. Is there where you are going with this, or are you heading towards no new outsiders should become Americans because that will prevent the U.S.ofA. from being a united nation? Or is the point something else entirely?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Thanks for once again being too stupid to unduhstand the most basic of concepts. When people who are very similar intermarry, you can still have a unified nation. That's the case whether it's people of different African tribes doing the intermarrying, or Norse marrying Danes and Saxons in England, or people from one Chinese province marrying those from another province.

 

Phuck!

 

I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue!

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Now I'm confused. It reads as if you are stating that having Americans of differing ethnic stocks intermarry won't lead to a unified nation but having separate pockets of pure _pick an ethnicity here_ will lead to a unified nation. Is there where you are going with this, or are you heading towards no new outsiders should become Americans because that will prevent the U.S.ofA. from being a united nation? Or is the point something else entirely?

 

Why bother Dave? You are talking to a neo-nazi...

 

Our nation is going to hell in a handbasket... A family member (in-law) of mine (American: Irish/Italian) married a woman from Mexico!...

 

If I am correct, according to HA... We mine as well throw the whole unified U.S. of A. concept out the window!

 

[Chef Jim]

A family member (in-law) of mine (American: Irish/Italian) married a woman from Mexico!...

 

Food and drink at those types of weddings are what legends are made of.

[Orton's Arm]

Horseshit. It was due to the Ottoman's tolerance of minorities and the professional army of the non-Turkish Jannisary.

Janissary troops didn't become a major factor in the Ottoman military until after the empire's initial rise. They were initially recruited from the families of peoples who had been conquered by the largely Turkish Ottoman Empire.

 

Janissary soldiers were generally recruited by kidnapping boys from places like Greece and the Balkans. Boys were involuntarily taken away from their families, forced to convert to Islam, and taught to regard their respective army groups as their true families. While this kidnapping/brainwashing may have served to give the Ottoman Empire a strong standing army; it can hardly be repeated today.

 

Tolerance of minorities is important if you don't want them to rebel--witness the relatively benign treatment the British Empire often extended to the peoples it ruled. But the absence of rebellion alone won't give you a strong empire. You need government officials to put the empire's interests ahead of their own; and you need soldiers willing to fight and die so the empire can live.

[Ramius]

Now I'm confused. It reads as if you are stating that having Americans of differing ethnic stocks intermarry won't lead to a unified nation but having separate pockets of pure _pick an ethnicity here_ will lead to a unified nation. Is there where you are going with this, or are you heading towards no new outsiders should become Americans because that will prevent the U.S.ofA. from being a united nation? Or is the point something else entirely?

 

No, he's saying that inter-ethnicity marriage is ok, but interracial marriages arent, according to mein holcomb.

[Orton's Arm]

Why bother Dave? You are talking to a neo-nazi...

 

Our nation is going to hell in a handbasket... A family member (in-law) of mine (American: Irish/Italian) married a woman from Mexico!...

 

If I am correct, according to HA... We mine as well throw the whole unified U.S. of A. concept out the window!

 

It's amazing that the definition of "neo-Nazi" somehow got broadened to include anyone who opposes a change in America's current racial composition. My views on immigration were considered mainstream back in the early 1940s U.S., back when the nation was at war against Nazi Germany.

 

Nothing that's happened since then has created a compelling need to make radical changes to our country's racial situation. Yet such changes are being made anyway . . .

[X. Benedict]

Janissary troops didn't become a major factor in the Ottoman military until after the empire's initial rise. They were initially recruited from the families of peoples who had been conquered by the largely Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Not sure why the rise makes a difference.

 

Janissary soldiers were generally recruited by kidnapping boys from places like Greece and the Balkans. Boys were involuntarily taken away from their families, forced to convert to Islam, and taught to regard their respective army groups as their true families. While this kidnapping/brainwashing may have served to give the Ottoman Empire a strong standing army; it can hardly be repeated today.

 

Militarily trained, but not assimilated. They were an imported caste and it is non-sense to talk about the Ottomans without their influence.

 

Tolerance of minorities is important if you don't want them to rebel--witness the relatively benign treatment the British Empire often extended to the peoples it ruled. But the absence of rebellion alone won't give you a strong empire. You need government officials to put the empire's interests ahead of their own; and you need soldiers willing to fight and die so the empire can live.

 

Was your argument that the Ottoman's were not an ethnically diverse and strong Empire?

[Taro T]

Why bother Dave? You are talking to a neo-nazi...

 

Our nation is going to hell in a handbasket... A family member (in-law) of mine (American: Irish/Italian) married a woman from Mexico!...

 

If I am correct, according to HA... We mine as well throw the whole unified U.S. of A. concept out the window!

 

That's been obvious since the Eugenics discussions began, although I've been hoping I was wrong about that which is probably why I've been going back and forth as to whether he's serious or pulling people's legs in many of these threads. (Although I will admit to not understanding how the "regression to the mean" phenomena support a Eugenics program.) I guess I have developed over these past few months some strange fascination with watching as he contradicts himself, and in this particular thread am curious if we'll see it go straight 720, or stop at 270 and veer back 45 degrees a couple of times before making the double loop-de-loop. By his logic, at least that which he's put to keyboard, if everyone in this country bred with someone outside their particular ethnicity, then the nation would be more unified. (Of course, by his apparent beliefs, it appears we'd be much better off if only we'd be able to keep our races segregated and with no immigration. Although, I suppose emigration of undesirables would be acceptable.) Our problems apparently stem from the fact that we've got whites and blacks and reds and yellows and FAR too many browns.

 

It's interesting, in that the African nations, most of whose borders were determined by Europeans, where borders cross historical tribal boundaries, provide examples of racial similarity not leading to unity. Of course we've never seen anything like this in say the Alsace-Lorraine region or western Poland or around the Baltics.

 

Of course, in the U.S., where there is less racial similarity than in any other nation on this planet, there hasn't been a Civil War in over 140 years. (It must be because we were ALL white and God-fearing in 1940. )

 

I'm guessing someone on this board whose favorite quarterback is now backing up a "Schwartzer", would get a big kick out of a very good friend of mine with a PhD and happening to be descended from slaves marrying and having 2 very bright children with a native German PhD.

 

No, he's saying that inter-ethnicity marriage is ok, but interracial marriages arent, according to mein holcomb.

I KNOW that's what he implied. There's just something compelling about actually reading it right there out in the open, without any veiled references to subsidizing intelligent women to breed 3.5 children.

Edited April 3, 2007 by dave_b

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Tolerance of minorities is important if you don't want them to rebel--witness the relatively benign treatment the British Empire often extended to the peoples it ruled.

 

Somehow, I think the Zulu people, the Boxers, the Boers and many millions of Indians would disagree with that statement.

[Bill from NYC]

Nothing that's happened since then has created a compelling need to make radical changes to our country's racial situation. Yet such changes are being made anyway . . .

 

Is it OK for a white person to marry a Puerto-Rican? After all, they ARE citizens. It could however change racial structure.

 

Good job pouring gasoline on the hypocrites flame as they make their case that one must be a racist to oppose the invasion of our country.

[Orton's Arm]

Is it OK for a white person to marry a Puerto-Rican? After all, they ARE citizens. It could however change racial structure.

 

Good job pouring gasoline on the hypocrites flame as they make their case that one must be a racist to oppose the invasion of our country.

Bill, I just don't want to see any races die off or get assimilated into other races. If that makes me a "racist" in the eyes of a few loudmouthed, short-sighted, shallow liberals, so be it. (I'm not accusing you of being any of those things. But most of the posts coming my way apparently have been written by people whose brains have been washed completely clean.)

[GG]

Bill, I just don't want to see any races die off or get assimilated into other races. If that makes me a "racist" in the eyes of a few loudmouthed, short-sighted, shallow liberals, so be it.

 

You know the old one about, "if it walks like a duck?"

 

Anyhoo, why are you still here? Shouldn't you be washing ashore on the Schuylkill?

[Orton's Arm]

You know the old one about, "if it walks like a duck?"

 

Anyhoo, why are you still here? Shouldn't you be washing ashore on the Schuylkill?

Speaking of intellectually shallow liberals, look who just showed up!