tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post8697585481653291742..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Article on Greek citizenship and naturalizationDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-49370573529063470262008-12-22T12:46:00.000+02:002008-12-22T12:46:00.000+02:00"Guessedworker" (who obviously does read Dienekes'...<I>"Guessedworker" (who obviously does read Dienekes' blog) still hasn't told us whether or not Dienekes is still "standing" where he ("Guessedworker") hoped he would be.</I><BR/><BR/>Still no answer. Typical. When these guys are wrong, instead of honorably admitting it and learning from their (all too frequent) mistakes, they just go blithely ahead to make their next gross error.<BR/><BR/>And then they wonder why they never achieve anything. Some "leadership."just say negrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04169793901181122731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46712822363029093572008-12-04T12:17:00.000+02:002008-12-04T12:17:00.000+02:00typo"Englisg" = "English"the points about the Dien...typo<BR/><BR/>"Englisg" = "English"<BR/><BR/>the points about the Dienekes' original post remain.just say negrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04169793901181122731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88815403245823881112008-12-04T12:15:00.000+02:002008-12-04T12:15:00.000+02:00"Guessedworker" (who obviously does read Dienekes'..."Guessedworker" (who obviously does read Dienekes' blog) still hasn't told us whether or not Dienekes is still "standing" where he ("Guessedworker") hoped he would be.<BR/><BR/>Dienekes' comment that he was fundamentally in agreement with (his definition of/Britannica's definition of) "jus sanguinis" led "Guessedworker" to write:<BR/><BR/><I><B>My compliments,</B> Dienikes. You once told told me that you were probably not standing politically where I thought you might be standing. But where I <B>hoped</B> you might be standing <B>was exactly there,</B> in the spirit of those few words you have written today.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Where</I> politically was it hoped that Dienekes was standing? The following quote by "Guessedworker" from his own blog suggests the answer:<BR/><BR/><I>As distinct peoples, <B>we have the same right to preserve our distinctiveness as any other peoples anywhere</B> - the same right, let it be said, as Tibetans, Yamomani and Palestinians whose survival the liberal-left backs to the hilt. <BR/><BR/>Mixed-race people, in particular, do not like to hear that the host population is genetically distinct, and <B>that European genotypes define European peoples.</B> They don’t like to know that, say, Bantu admixture - most of them are African half-breeds - <B>ends European distinctiveness and, with that, ends the European peoples.</B> They tend to reify the National Socialist doctrine of racial purity and wave it at us. But it doesn’t help them. No people is genetically pure. But there remain large genetic distances between the major races, and such ancient admixture that exists in the European genotypes <B>is not a licence to include someone with 50% Bantu ancestry today.</B></I><BR/><BR/>However, it is <I>obvious</I> from Dienekes' original post that this is not what he was defending - a point (needlessly) confirmed when Dienekes agreed with the idea that a half-Nigerian half-Greek would be as much as a Greek citizen by "jus sanguinis" as would be an unmixed Greek. This suggests that Dienekes' idea of "jus sanguinis" <B>would view a half-Bantu half-Englisg individual as much as a English citizen (by "jus sanguinis") as "Guessedworker" himself.</B><BR/><BR/>Therefore, it is obvious - and should have been from the beginning - that Dienekes is, and never was and likely, never will be) - standing politically where "Guessedworker" hoped he would be.<BR/><BR/>Admission of error is a prerequisite for open debate.just say negrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04169793901181122731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88233290778024458362008-12-04T08:41:00.000+02:002008-12-04T08:41:00.000+02:00I'd recommend Majority Rights (Guessedworker's sit...I'd recommend <A HREF="http://majorityrights.com" REL="nofollow">Majority Rights</A> (Guessedworker's site) to the sangha, Cyd, and anyone else interested in discussing these issues (immigration, Salter, etc.) further. I don't endorse a lot of what gets posted there, but they welcome debate.n/ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37398310388879455642008-12-04T03:37:00.000+02:002008-12-04T03:37:00.000+02:00I'd like to thank n/a for showing me, inadvertentl...I'd like to thank n/a for showing me, inadvertently, that the U.S. constitution has yet again been a casualty of scheming and irresponsible politicians.<BR/><BR/>This is of course a very serious issue, one that I think requires a more serious discourse from both myself and n/a, and any other participants.<BR/><BR/>As for Frank Salter, I am really curious about his work, yet I'm not so blind to ideology that I will unquestionably accept what he says because a nationalist movement embraces him. From my standpoint, nationalism comes from the passions (which have a biological component) -- it is not something you can convince someone to have based on arguments over changing gene frequencies. That's one reason why I am not a big fan of a lot of reductionist science (which is popular here), and it's also why I think lacing speeches with profanity is unnecessary (not that I oppose profanity, specifically). :P<BR/><BR/>Regarding enlightened detachment, I think it's something we both -- whether you admire Shakyamuni (Eastern) or Socrates/Stoics (Western) -- could work on. <BR/><BR/>I'm just having fun, man. I think you have some potential within you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86963875458300647742008-12-03T21:18:00.000+02:002008-12-03T21:18:00.000+02:00@sangha:Your posts in this thread clearly do not r...@sangha:<BR/><BR/>Your posts in this thread clearly do not reflect the spirit of enlightened detachment you seem to fancy yourself possessed of. Given your apparent youth, I don't hold that against you.<BR/><BR/>If you believe what you say you believe, I recommend you think more deeply about how to most effectively advance those causes. <BR/><BR/>If you think you know how to argue persuasively, do so -- and not as devil's advocate for the side that already dominates public discourse.n/ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6384863904212141942008-12-03T18:07:00.000+02:002008-12-03T18:07:00.000+02:00"Cool" one, with the stellar reading and argumenta..."Cool" one, with the stellar reading and argumentative skills you have put on display, it is clear why you feel anyone wandering into your turf would get "bitch slapped". Obviously spoken from experience...<BR/><BR/>We'll let you know when you say anything worthy of respectful dialogue. Maju has proven himself to be incapable of anything other than cringing leftist bilge. You seem to be moving along those same lines.Cydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334032603842676523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17614465041043306292008-12-03T17:20:00.000+02:002008-12-03T17:20:00.000+02:00Actually, I see that n/a has brought up the issue ...Actually, I see that n/a has brought up the issue of original intent and cited Frank Salter, to his credit. <BR/><BR/>It's easy to miss the points he makes with all of the personal rubbish he includes along with them.<BR/><BR/>So perhaps he is redeemable after all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6875269187793996702008-12-03T17:08:00.000+02:002008-12-03T17:08:00.000+02:00Try more thoughtful intellectual rigor and less yo...<I>Try more thoughtful intellectual rigor and less youthful stupidity, please.</I><BR/><BR/>OK, so someone has entered the thread in defense of a person who has engaged in anonymous, gratuitous attacks on others. Actually, I <I>am</I> impressed. :P<BR/><BR/><I>He is "original", or at least original in the current context of PC dogma. What you, Maju the moron and fat Kosmo eruct is unoriginal bile. Happily parroting idiotic indoctrination and claiming originality.</I><BR/><BR/>I haven't yet observed any intelligent arguments from you or n/a. Let me help you:<BR/><BR/>http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/birthrightcitizenship.htm<BR/><BR/>The site I refer to offers evidence that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S., is not in accord with the <I>original intent</I> of the authors. <BR/><BR/>I have yet to see n/a specifically cite anything to support his views. He's vague and unclear. He needs to work on his persuasion.<BR/><BR/><I>How about we eject Maju the moron, along with all his braindead ilk, so he can be free to lap any pair of black balls he sees fit in order to fill his aching anti-racist heart?</I><BR/><BR/>He would have to learn from the best, so you can go ahead and start training him...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80454053115396608192008-12-03T15:34:00.000+02:002008-12-03T15:34:00.000+02:00You sound as cool as you look and I'm thoroughly i...<I>You sound as cool as you look and <B>I'm thoroughly impressed</B>.</I><BR/><BR/>LOL Yes, me too.<BR/><BR/><I>Self-amusement, and because I see you the way a scientist sees a lab rodent in a cage.</I><BR/><BR/>More coolness. Try more thoughtful intellectual rigor and less youthful stupidity, please. <BR/><BR/><I>At least be a little original. "Fuck this and fuck that, fuck this and fuck that" gets you bitch-slapped where I am from. It annoys people.</I><BR/><BR/>He is "original", or at least original in the current context of PC dogma. What you, Maju the moron and fat Kosmo eruct is unoriginal bile. Happily parroting idiotic indoctrination and claiming originality.<BR/><BR/><I>I really despise those counties that have such racist provisions and think they should be expelled from EU, germany included.</I> - from Maju<BR/><BR/>What a moron. Perhaps this yapping leftist dipshit would care to turn the looking glass onto his own anti-racist egalitarianism and see that he exudes intolerance and...gasp...racism himself. Yes, the two things he supposedly despises. Though they happen to be directed at what is currently socially acceptable, that being white Europeans. Ohhhh what a picture of "leadership" we have in Maju. Edgy in fact.<BR/><BR/>Here's a thought, instead of ejecting nations out of the EU for "racism". How about we eject Maju the moron, along with all his braindead ilk, so he can be free to lap any pair of black balls he sees fit in order to fill his aching anti-racist heart? Deal Maju? Win-win by my account.Cydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334032603842676523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14834369643506245872008-12-03T00:24:00.000+02:002008-12-03T00:24:00.000+02:00@sangha:You sound as cool as you look and I'm thor...@sangha:<BR/><BR/>You sound as cool as you look and I'm thoroughly impressed.n/ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63284961402905980012008-11-30T00:05:00.000+02:002008-11-30T00:05:00.000+02:00re: jus sanguinis, the "standard" (dictionary) def...<I>re: jus sanguinis, the "standard" (dictionary) definition includes the word "parents".</I><BR/><BR/>There is nothing in the standard definition of jus sanguinis requiring both parents to have the same nationality.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58120657508870259772008-11-29T23:46:00.000+02:002008-11-29T23:46:00.000+02:00I draw a distinction between settlers and immigran...I draw a distinction between settlers and immigrants.<BR/><BR/>Leftist dumbfuck with nothing interesting to add needs to shut the fuck up. Next time, go check a dictionary before trying to tell your betters how to speak their own language.<BR/><BR/>Remedial English for boring, subliterate mulleted trash like CG and Maju:<BR/><BR/><I>A?mer?i?can<BR/> /??m?r?k?n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-mer-i-kuhn]<BR/><BR/>–adjective<BR/>1. of or pertaining to the United States of America or its inhabitants: an American citizen. <BR/><BR/>–noun<BR/>4. a citizen of the United States of America.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>re: <I>jus sanguinis</I>, the "standard" (dictionary) definition includes the word "parent<B>s</B>".n/ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78064188828425220212008-11-29T22:26:00.000+02:002008-11-29T22:26:00.000+02:00That is not an "interpretation", that is the stand...<I>That is not an "interpretation", that is the standard use of the term.<BR/><BR/>Brittanica...</I><BR/><BR/>I do not refer to the "official" or "standard" use of the term, but the different interpretations of someone like Dienekes ("standard") and someone, like "Guessedworker," who I presume has a more exclusive definition of jus sanguinis.<BR/><BR/>However, I may be mistaken. If "Guessedworker's" enthusiasm for Dienekes' fundamenal support of "standard" jus sanguinis means that he ("Guessedworker") agress that half-Nigerians should be citizens of Greece (or England, for that matter), we'd all be interested in knowing this.<BR/><BR/>What does it mean for Dienekes to be "standing exactly," politically speaking," where "Guessedworker" hopes he would be?<BR/><BR/>My interest in interpretations of jus sanguinis is Dienekes vs. "Guessedworker." We can leave encylopedia definitions to the side for the moment.just say negrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04169793901181122731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40527781255569808132008-11-29T19:16:00.000+02:002008-11-29T19:16:00.000+02:00If so, then does "Guessedworker" agree with Dienek...<I>If so, then does "Guessedworker" agree with Dienekes' "drop of blood" interpretation of jus sanguinis?</I><BR/><BR/>That is not an "interpretation", that is the standard use of the term.<BR/><BR/>Brittanica: "there are two main systems used to determine citizenship as of the time of birth: jus soli, whereby citizenship is acquired by birth within the territory of the state, regardless of parental citizenship; and <I>jus sanguinis, whereby a person, wherever born, is a citizen of the state if, at the time of his birth, his parent is one.</I>"Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-9980400548639184682008-11-29T18:07:00.000+02:002008-11-29T18:07:00.000+02:00Unfortunately mant citizens of the USA seem to fee...<I>Unfortunately mant citizens of the USA seem to feel that way.</I><BR/><BR/>You sound prejudiced. <BR/><BR/><I>If you are so sure of this perhaps you would be in favour of expelling those white Americans who fall below the average academic performance of Mexican immigrants. Surely this would raise the average academic performance substantially.</I><BR/><BR/>My rejection of non-traditional immigration is not based on academics (or economics). It's based on <A HREF="http://www.majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/egi" REL="nofollow">more fundamental</A> issues. <BR/><BR/>But no it does not follow that if one see's the wisdom in not importing low-skilled foreigners one must also reject one's unskilled co-nationals. For one thing, to the extent one cares about one's co-nationals more than about random inhabitants of earth, unskilled co-nationals are the ones who will be most negatively impacted by the importation of unskilled foreigners and who will benefit most from immigration restriction. For another, there is a place for unskilled workers in First World economies, but not for massively growing numbers of unskilled workers. A glut of unskilled labor will lead to less investment in technology and ultimately lower standards of living.n/ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42303379803694383082008-11-29T17:41:00.000+02:002008-11-29T17:41:00.000+02:00sangha, You really need to worry less about others...sangha, <BR/><BR/>You really need to worry less about others' states of mind and more about not making pointless comments.<BR/><BR/>Tear-jerking "ruined lives" stories are a staple of major media immigration reporting. That "argument" is hardly novel. I did not take issue with the proposition that people's lives might be less pleasant if sent back to their own countries. (That's pretty much a given; why else would they be here?) I reacted to the idea that these hypothetical scenarios in and of themselves form some sort of devastating counterargument in favor of automtic citizenship for children of illegals. When you chimed in to assure us that "lives could be ruined" all you did was signal your agreement with kosmo (i.e., that you approach politics like an overemotional woman) whether you intended to or not. If you in fact favor sane immigration policy, why the fuck are you wasting my time?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>re: crimson tard's expectoration, Mexico <A HREF="http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/binpapers/v2b-1bustamante.pdf" REL="nofollow">does not</A> have birthright citizenship. <BR/><BR/><I>Mexico’s law of the land distinguishes between nationality and citizenship. It<BR/>includes both criteria, jus soli and jus sanguinis to establish that Mexican nationality<BR/>is acquired either by birth within the Mexican territory or, regardless of birth place,<BR/>by being the child of a Mexican father or a Mexican mother or both. Mexican<BR/>nationality can also be acquired by naturalization. Mexican nationality however, is<BR/>a neccesary but not a sufficient condition to become a Mexican citizen. A Mexican<BR/>national by birth needs, a) to be <B>18 years of age or older</B> or, b) in the case of being<BR/>born in other country of Mexican parents, or being born in Mexico of both parents<BR/>being citizens of other country, to have <B>expressly and formally resigned being a<BR/>citizen of any other country</B>, after being 18 years of age. Such a distinction between<BR/>nationality and citizenship in Mexico has important implications for patrimonial<BR/>and job-related rights.</I><BR/><BR/>Nor does Mexico allow dual citizenship:<BR/><BR/><I>A Mexican national by birth might acquire dual or multiple nationalities<BR/>without losing his or her original Mexican nationality obtained by either jus soli or<BR/>jus sanguinis, when in Mexican territory. However, such an individual <B>cannot have<BR/>more than one country of citizenship</B>. </I><BR/><BR/>Mexico overall is much <A HREF="http://www.vdare.com/awall/070516_memo.htm" REL="nofollow">more restrictive</A> on immigration than America.<BR/><BR/>Retarded immigrant spawn CG is in no position to tell Americans what is "un-American". The founders limited naturalization to "free white persons". And the Senator who wrote the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment certainly <A HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11" REL="nofollow">did not intend</A> that birthright citizenship apply to foreigners: <BR/><BR/>"This amendment which I have clarified is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already..[It] <B>does not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens</B>, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of person. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."n/ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44338100036705625712008-11-29T15:54:00.000+02:002008-11-29T15:54:00.000+02:00Dienekes: Indeed; to do otherwise would be to infr...Dienekes: <I><B>Indeed</B>; to do otherwise would be to infringe on a Greek citizen's <B>fundamental right to marry whoever they please.</B> A ban on Greek-foreigner marriages as state policy <B>is not a</B> practical or <B>desirable law</B>.</I><BR/><BR/>Dienekes, thank you for that clarification, although it was strictly not necessary - any person of reasonable intelligence can easily discern the intent of your original post.<BR/><BR/>Is then Dienekes "standing exactly politically" where "Guessedworker" <I><B>hoped</B></I> he would be standing?<BR/><BR/>If so, then does "Guessedworker" agree with Dienekes' "drop of blood" interpretation of jus sanguinis?<BR/><BR/>If not, does "Guessedworker" admit his error with respect to Dienekes' "fundamental" agreement with a broad and inclusive jus sanguinis policy?just say negrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04169793901181122731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16759096180015366962008-11-29T14:47:00.000+02:002008-11-29T14:47:00.000+02:00I am not aware that Greeks can reproduce by binary...<I>I am not aware that Greeks can reproduce by binary fission; thus, two parents are needed. If only one needs to be Greek as per Dienekes' apparent definition, then a Greek-Nigerian hybrid is just as much a Greek citizen that is an unmixed Greek.</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed; to do otherwise would be to infringe on a Greek citizen's fundamental right to marry whoever they please. A ban on Greek-foreigner marriages as state policy is not a practical or desirable law.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48356176810826396572008-11-29T14:22:00.000+02:002008-11-29T14:22:00.000+02:00Agree that can happen and should not happen. But n...<I>Agree that can happen and should not happen. But native born people are likely to feel largely part of the country they have been raised at, regardless of ancestry, unless ghettoes are created.</I><BR/><BR/>Whether they feel that way or not depends on several factors. Immigrants from neighboring countries are likely to retain a connection to their home country; immigrants that are phenotypically or culturally or religiously very distant from the native population are more difficult to integrate.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55392035513736345112008-11-29T14:19:00.000+02:002008-11-29T14:19:00.000+02:00Most American nations within the Americas practice...<I>Most American nations within the Americas practice Jus soli, as we were built by it.. whether it be the USA, Canada, Mexico, Argentina ect.</I><BR/><BR/>That is a good point; the nations of the New World had to deal with the issue of naturalization from their inception since they were net importers of immigrants. They grew to a large extent due to immigration (on top of the natural growth due to fertility increases).<BR/><BR/>Nations of the Old World, and especially those that were established by the breakup of Empires did no grow primarily by immigration but rather by the addition of their co-ethnics either due to changes of borders after war or the relocation of their co-ethnics into the national territory.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36915565177849968662008-11-29T14:18:00.000+02:002008-11-29T14:18:00.000+02:00"Guessedworker" writes: My compliments, Dienikes. ..."Guessedworker" writes: <I>My compliments, Dienikes. You once told told me that you were probably not standing politically where I thought you might be standing. But where I hoped you might be standing was exactly there, in the spirit of those few words you have written today.</I><BR/><BR/>Before "Guessedworker" further wets himself with excitement, let's look at what Dienekes seems to be saying with his definition of "jus sanguinis."<BR/><BR/><I>The offspring of a Greek citizen are Greek citizens.</I><BR/><BR/>"a" in this context means singular, not plural. I am not aware that Greeks can reproduce by binary fission; thus, two parents are needed. If only one needs to be Greek as per Dienekes' apparent definition, then a Greek-Nigerian hybrid is just as much a Greek citizen that is an unmixed Greek.<BR/><BR/>I won't even mention Dienekes' points 2-8.<BR/><BR/>Dienekes summarizes:<BR/><BR/><I>I believe that such a system is flexible enough to <B>facilitate honest legal immigrants</B> in their everyday life. On the other hand, it also ensures that the Greek citizen body will always consist of ethnic Greeks and <B>their descendants.</B></I><BR/><BR/>Putting aside the acceptance of immigrants, we note that Dienekes mentions "descendants" of "ethnic Greeks" - he does <B>not</B> say <I>unmixed</I> descendants.<BR/><BR/>I see nothing there that would object to a 31/32 Nigerian, 1/32 Greek from being considered the "descendant" of an "ethnic Greek" and thus eligible for a jus sanguinis citizenship.<BR/><BR/>If my interpretation is incorrect, then Dienekes can clarify his meaning; the point remains that there is <B>nothing</B> in Dienekes' original post that argues against a "single drop of blood" interpretation of jus sanguinis.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, and not surprisingly, "Guessedworker" exercises poor judgment in his praise of Dienekes, assuming that, as one may reasonably conclude from a perusal of "Guessedworker's" own "blog," that he himself would oppose a "single drop" interpretation of English citizenship, in which a 31/32 Nigerian, 1/32 Englishman would be eligible for citizenship based upon that 1/32 ancestry.just say negrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04169793901181122731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-986053546545107392008-11-29T13:44:00.000+02:002008-11-29T13:44:00.000+02:00The main problem with the jus soli regime is that ...<I>The main problem with the jus soli regime is that it may lead to unassimilated minorities. Such minorities may then -through the power of their vote- affect the policies and future course of the country. </I><BR/><BR/>Agree that can happen and should not happen. But native born people are likely to feel largely part of the country they have been raised at, regardless of ancestry, unless ghettoes are created. <BR/><BR/>Ghettoization can at times be blamed upon the minorities themselves (at least partly) but is often also problem of poor intergation by the locals. In extreme cases you could end like the Gulf states, where a shrinking minority rules over a mass of rightless, virtually enslaved, "foreign" workers. That doesn't make any sense either and is against any common sense regarding labor policies (i.e. it damages the status of national workers as well as of foreigners by creating an apartheid system). And anyhow, if they are producing all the wealth, they should have all the rights.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40117875805769885992008-11-29T10:43:00.000+02:002008-11-29T10:43:00.000+02:00"Apparently, you see everyone else as a potential ..."Apparently, you see everyone else as a potential enemy: that's not a pleasant way to live in this world". <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately mant citizens of the USA seem to feel that way. And the attitude has been used to great effect by those wishing to become President of that country. Mind you, it pays us to remember it's not the only country where such things happen. <BR/><BR/>"The descendants of Mexican immigrants as a group will never perform academically or economically at the level of white Americans". <BR/><BR/>If you are so sure of this perhaps you would be in favour of expelling those white Americans who fall below the average academic performance of Mexican immigrants. Surely this would raise the average academic performance substantially.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55084239168270373032008-11-29T05:24:00.000+02:002008-11-29T05:24:00.000+02:00n/a wrote: "Your ethics are really shit, by the wa...n/a wrote: "Your ethics are really shit, by the way. Billions of people are poorer than the typical Mexican. The US can't take in even a tiny fraction of them and still be America. But shitty people like you and kosmo think we need to reward Mexicans who come here illegally so you can feel good about yourselves."<BR/><BR/>Man, lighten up. I did not state I agreed with Kosmo; I merely accepted his premises as factual and his conclusions as reasonable. <BR/><BR/>Apparently, you see everyone else as a potential enemy: that's not a pleasant way to live in this world. <BR/><BR/>One day, hopefully, assuming there is an iota of spiritual or moral intelligence within you, you will look back and see how silly you are behaving.<BR/><BR/>I also highly suspect that you are nowhere near as aggressive when people are able to see you face to face. While I may get into some trouble for saying this, I just can't see an alpha male so fixated on early 20th-century anthropology. Perhaps, though, you are a marvelous exception. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com