Divergence "Japan and South Korea aren't tiny countries"

I said the others were (Qatar, Seychelles, Barbados, etc)

Japan and Korea are the *only* significant non-White peoples who have *proven* themselves.
They are actually related to each other, so maybe "success" is genetic with them too.
You either have it (Whites, Japanese/Koreans) or you don't (the rest).

"If they come from an incompatible culture, then we obviously should be extra careful."

But we can't "profile" peoples/cultures/nationalities.
That would be "waysist".

Why even bother taking the risk?
We know European cultures/peoples are compatible, as they're related to us.
We share a common history.

If we want to help people from the developing world, what about all those remnant White colonial minorities (British, French, German, etc) that face the wrath of resentful natives?

There are probably at least a few million of them, and they're educated, smart, numerate, literate, etc.
Their adjustment to our society would be easier and quicker.

And as economic and environmental crises loom, they will be desperate to get the hell outta there.
Why not welcome our "siblings" and "cousins" into our home as our *first* priority?

"I support cutting immigration back to zero net, but that is still tens of thousands of people every year. In deciding who to take, what is wrong with judging people as individuals?"

But we aren't "judging" anyone.
We aren't getting the leading scientists, artists, etc.
We are getting the dregs.

Divergence,

Below is Numbers USA holding an anti-immigration town hall meeting a couple of weeks ago. Note the invitees: Tea Party, Eagle Forum and the Remembrance Project. That’s Numbers USA inviting them. It’s not the Tea Party, Eagle Forum and Remembrance Project members just walking by and thought they’d drop in and see what was happening.

http://conservativebyte.com/2013/08/tea-party-to-hold-immigration-town-hall/

Their websites don’t say they are racists. They just want the Mexicans, Chicanos, Jews, Africans and Asians to stay where they are and “Grow where they are planted” to quote Beck. Ha!

The Remembrance Project are people who have banded together in fellowship and revenge over Americans who were killed by immigrants. Your young groovy suburban eco-voters are going to love the Eagle Forum too. Look them up.

Here is a post from the KKK promoting Numbers USA all the way back to 2002!

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t43964/

Note ‘Skinhead power’ from Anderson South Carolina says ‘excellent site www.numbersusa.com - and it’s free’. I always thought it was the Jews who were known for parsimony.

Remember what I said about Beck and SPP drinking from the same cup? What has the SPP got itself mixed up in? You keep the $50.00. You’ll need it. The SPP is three degrees away from the KKK and its greenwashing/wedging environmental tactics are pure Numbers USA.

Malcolm King,

Appearing on the same platform at a town meeting with some pretty unpleasant people like the Tea Party doesn't mean that NumbersUSA endorses all of their views. It is sort of like the Greenies and the farmers getting together to try to stop coal seam gas mining or fracking on agricultural land. NumbersUSA and the Far Right groups are only united here in trying to stop the Democrats' amnesty bill that has already passed the Senate, the most serious effects of which are a massive increase in legal immigration, which is already very large, and creating a magnet for more illegal immigration. The business lobby is getting the open borders to cheap labour that it craves. The billionaire Warren Buffett has said words to the effect that there is a class war and his side is winning. This bill is another pre-emptive strike. Getting the bill defeated by motivating people to lobby their Congressman is a much more important objective than demonstrating moral purity by recoiling in horror from the Far Right. What did NumbersUSA say at that town meeting? You aren't able to find any racist words or policies, so you can only try to smear the organization with vague associations.

You seem to think that racism is the ultimate evil, or you want other people to believe it, but I regard people like you as a far greater threat to our environment and society than people like Shockadelic, even though I don't agree with him about race. He might actually care about the environment and the welfare of his ordinary and disadvantaged fellow citizens.

So far as Jane O'Sullivan is concerned, you should look at her peer-reviewed article in Economic Affairs, not just her OLO piece. She refers to Lester Thurow, but does her own independent calculations. She is actually more conservative than the Curtin University study on infrastructure costs referred to by William Bourke.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2011.02125.x/pdf

Divergence/SPP,

they didn't appear, they were invited. The meeting was about working together to come up with strategies to promote the anti-immigration agenda. I had the agenda emailed to me through a third party.

It is not like the Greens and the farmers getting together over a coffee. That's a good one. It is like Numbers USA getting in to bed with far right racist groups, getting them to do their dirty work, and then saying 'it's not us'.

You can belittle and deflect all you like and use terms like 'class' but the SPP has no environmental credentials and absolutely no runs on the board re social justice.

You are the most trenchant (or delusional) of the SPP executive. The fact that SPP preferenced Hanson and One Nation before the Greens is more evidence of the SPP's perfidious nature.

Malcolm King what exactly is wrong with "stay[ing] where they are"?

Isn't that what most people do?
Less than 3% of the world population are immigrants.

So over 97% of humans do, if fact, "stay where they are", or more accurately, stay where they're born.
Would it make much difference if that was 98%, 99%, 100% in the future?

"Staying where you are" is the historical and contemporary *norm*, despite all the hoopla about "immigrants building nations".

If living conditions in some countries are pitiful, that is *not* our responsibility.
And we could only ever take a tiny fraction of those affected, leaving the vast majority unchanged.

What does change is *our* society.

The argument for non-discriminatory immigration is presented hysterically, obsessively and deceptively, which is not what "enlightened" people would do.

It is based on nothing factual beyond being a "species", which means *nothing*.
(Define anything that our "species" does that is culturally invariant.)
Its basis is theoretical, idealistic, fantastical.

On the other hand, the "racist" argument is based on reality, probability, anthropology.
A shared, related history going back thousands of years.
The obvious advanced development of White-majority countries.

Even if we agreed Japanese and Koreans (and *only* them) are at the same level, that wouldn't justify demographic disruption (especially when they refuse to reciprocate this in their own countries).

If we want to "help" people, we could just as easily accept any of the millions of our educated White "siblings/cousins" who currently live in former colonies, surrounded by an often-hostile Coloured majority.

There is no honest, logical, factual argument *against* a White-restricted policy.
If you have one, please "enlighten" us.

Malcolm King,

NumbersUSA and the Far Right groups such as the Tea Party are united about stopping the Democrats' amnesty bill, but where is your evidence that NumbersUSA has endorsed any of their other policies? Because you and I might agree on one issue, say, encouraging chilren to read, that doesn't mean that we agree on everything.

I am not on the executive of SPP and have had no input into its preferences. By the way, unlike Cheryl, I really am female.

As I recall, though, One Nation was pretty far down the SPP preference list. The Greens are hopeless on population, even though they have a nice sounding policy. When Julia Gillard said that she didn't believe in "hurtling toward a Big Australia" and then did the exact opposite, the Greens didn't say a word, even though they were in a very strong bargaining position. They also essentially want open borders for anyone claiming to be a refugee. (As a practical matter, it is very difficult to deport a failed asylum seeker who has destroyed his travel documents.) There is no point in cutting per capita consumption to reduce our carbon footprint and then keep adding people, as well as the bigger coal exports that are required to pay for the imports needed by the bigger population. This is simply window dressing, creating the illusion that something is being done. (According to the Australia Institute, the average migrant's carbon footprint doubles on coming to Australia. Their children will also be consuming at the same rate as everyone else here.) So far as the environment is concerned, only the total impact matters. The Greens are preaching about the environment, but the environment always loses when it is in competition with their "social justice" or "humanitarian" objectives.

If population growth is cut back, I will be happy to shift my attention to what I consider the next most serious environmental issue.