So what is your take on the Alt/New Right?

[SG1]

I'm still trying to decipher his use of "more over". Or how it's actually spelled- moreover, it's one word, not two. We could start a drinking game with his use of that word.

Auto correct is a pain in the ass.

[Irving]

Doesn't the US have a dropping birthrate, like most other first world countries? Restricting immigration to 200,000 a year sounds like a sure way to rapidly reduce our country to a population that will either be easily over run by an invading force, fall off the map of economic relevance, or most likely, both. What is your true aim here? It sounds like your goal is to sweet talk this nation into oblivion.

[SG1]

Doesn't the US have a dropping birthrate, like most other first world countries? Restricting immigration to 200,000 a year sounds like a sure way to rapidly reduce our country to a population that will either be easily over run by an invading force, fall off the map of economic relevance, or most likely, both. What is your true aim here? It sounds like your goal is to sweet talk this nation into oblivion.

1st. A dropping birth rate is because a sluggish economy, and the ever increasing burden of every higher costs of housing/child care/education due to regulations and the increase in demand that is fueled by mass immigration. Furthermore you do not need more people to grow the economy.

If America needs more people, Americans are up to the task.

200,000 people leave the Country every year this would be a non net growth immigration plan and it works very well.

"Easily run over by a invading force"...Are you nuts? We are not going to see landing craft storm the beaches of Malibu, we are going to see you coming from a long ways away, stop you with missles, drones or nukes. The area of large armies slugging it out are for the most party gone.

Fall off the map of economic relevance

Funny, explain away Japan, Korea, Israel, etc, they have next to no mass immigration and their economic power houses?

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/11/25...n-japan-58908/

How did we have the greatest explosion of wealth and standard of living in the 50s and mid 60s while we had limited immigration under the 1924 Immigration Act?

How/why did wages sky rocket 90% between 1924-1970?

I will wait....

What is your true aim here? It sounds like your goal is to sweet talk this nation into oblivion.

What is your aim here? Please tell us how Mass immigration has helped this nation?

How has adding 60 million, largely 3rd world people to this nation legally since 1965 made things better?

How has adding 30 million illegals to this nation made things better?

How has bring in large numbers of people who take out more then they put in, given protected status, allowed to effect our economy, communities, elections, nation and the future of them improved anything?

What have they given us that we would not be able to do to ourselves at lower cost and less burden?

I want answers. I really do.

My aim? Its very simply, protect this nation, its culture, and our Liberty and enjoy life, being free and building a great future for myself, my posterity and my countrymen. Mass immigration (many things do but immigration is something entirely in our control) threatens that as we are taking in A. too many people B. from non compatible cultures C. with non compatible political values. If you change the people of a nation, you change its culture, change the culture, you change the political landscape of it, and the political landscape of these nations and supported by a majority of the incoming is the same tried and failed serfdom or marxist hellscape that made their home nations the current failed states they are now.

Seeing how groups vote in blocs for the Democratic party and if importation is not halted will result in America become a one party nation with the left controlling Congress and the White House (and the court by default)
you will be able to see what America looks like by gazing in horror at New York or California, no freedoms, no rights, a dimmer and dimmer future and a small ruling elite importing more serf voters to insure they are in power in perpetuity as the nation of the Founders is breed and bled out of exist.

This is very well document tactic that was used by Rome and a very well document tactic that the British did called the Ulster plantation, change the make up of an area with controllable people/groups, inflate them to the point a
of a majority, rule said majority via appointed rulers.

Immigration is the issue that really decides all others, if your politically enemies are able to change the nation to the point where you can not win national power it really does not matter what you want as you will never be able to achieve political power to enact them.

Their is still time to stop the keys from turning, we can still prevent this rigging of the deck. We can very easily secure the border, deport, limit legal immigration (along 1924 lines, updated for current issues/threats) and change the entire outcome.

[GilpinGuy]

A dropping birth rate is because a sluggish economy, and the ever increasing burden of every higher costs of housing/child care/education due to regulations and the increase in demand that is fueled by mass immigration.

Wealthier nations have lower birth rates in general.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25

Does NYCO have a new IP or something?

[Joe_K]

Ok, I'll bite. Suppose we update our immigration policy to your standards SG-1 and have effectively eliminated subversive migrants from within borders and coasts. Now what. You will still have 30 - 60%, (I'm guessing here), of the population that supports liberal, leftist, communist ideology, and more importantly will vote in that vein.
How are you going to ensure that only strong, anti socialism persons are born and raised here?

Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

[Great-Kazoo]

Wealthier nations have lower birth rates in general.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25

Does NYCO have a new IP or something?

Which is unusual as the ability to access food easily allows one to reproduce better than one who is "starving" . Some time ago another study was done on the famished in Africa. It showed birth rates were almost non-existent where food availability was minimal. Once relief packages were present the birth rate increased as food and nutrients became available.
Catch 22, how does one stand by allowing the decimation of people through starvation. Yet come up with enough to feed the increasing population of a nourished one.

Ok, I'll bite. Suppose we update our immigration policy to your standards SG-1 and have effectively eliminated subversive migrants from within borders and coasts. Now what. You will still have 30 - 60%, (I'm guessing here), of the population that supports liberal, leftist, communist ideology, and more importantly will vote in that vein.
How are you going to ensure that only strong, anti socialism persons are born and raised here?

Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

I'll give you a hint how people like this "person" thinks. He's hidden his eugenics ideals only so slightly. Blood and lie detector test


Surprised his tag line isn't SG1 UBER ALLES

[sroz]

Just gotta ask....are you affiliated with any party? And if so, what is it called?

[CS1983]

The idea that higher costs drive down birthrate is absurd. What drives down birth rate is an acceptance of two things: the selfishness of contraception in conjunction with wanting to have a lifestyle that's of itself luxurious and overly materialistic.

Case in point:
This couple has 13 kids total, some old enough to be out of the house:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cent-debt.html

Between dad's salary and odd jobs, etc., they pull in around 110k a year. He went from owning a bookstore making 36k to doing a STEM job (software development) which pushed his salary higher... IT isn't rocket science. PLenty of average folks could do it if they'd devote what... 1-2 years of self-study to get their foot in the door.

COL comparison:
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-li...ings-co/110000

He would make around 91k here in COS (and since he is work from home, if he doesn't HAVE to go into the office a day or two a week, he could move somewhere even cheaper than Bowie, MD).

I know several families with huge amounts of kids (8-12 per family). All are traditional Catholics who place the fecundity of a marriage and the relationship of the family first and materialistic outlooks are low, low, low on the list. The husbands didn't "follow their dreams" and go into low paying liberal arts nonsense; they also didn't rest on the laurels of being some low level union-job having lackey. Not all of them are STEM, either. Of all, the wife doesn't work but stays home with the kids and generally homeschools -- if there's a period where there is an age gap big enough for older kids to take care of younger ones, they might get a part time job if needed. A few are light blue collar (and some are so blue collar you need a glove to shake their hand if you don't want to lose skin) and instead of buying some place in the city, they bought a little land and do things like sell chicken eggs, the kids do odd jobs to earn spending money, and clothes are passed down and repaired until they need to be replaced. Fanciest new things? No. TV cable costs? No. etc.

Let's be honest -- as Americans, in general, we live like kings of yesteryear. And we have no need to do so. We do this based on a cycle of debt and a post-ww2 seeking of (as Ann Barnhardt puts it) "precious, precious shit" which would give our grandparents a heart attack. One of my grandfathers was a mid-level manager of a mining operation in rural florida (phosphate), having worked his way up from the phosphate pits themselves. They lived in the same house my dad and his brother lived in as kids. 3 bed, 1 bath, 20 acres. Granddaddy and Granny gardened, canned food, and had very little in the way of possessions. What they lacked in shiny, they made up for in familial love and solid, traditional values. They were by and large happy. My mom's parents were much more well off, and they were generally miserable (possessions and pursuits don't fill the gap left by a horrible family life). Papa was a senior sales exec for Florida Citrus, making darn good money. Always in debt though, because the jump from being the wife of a ww2 sailor who left high school early to join the Navy to "being somebody" went to Mimi's head; Country Clubs are a hell of a drug. I would not call her atypical of the era and certainly she was more in line with today's mentality than not. Appearance mattered. Having new things mattered. My mom swears that when Papa got promoted and they moved to a "richer" area, the family began falling apart. Yet, they did have 6 kids total, the oldest of whom died shortly after being born due to complications from spina bifida. The problem, though, came in when they adopted a mentality of having possessions mattered, as did maintaining a social standing. Be honest -- isn't that the reason most people have their 1.2 kids, if any? Because it's too "expensive". It's not. What's expensive is a materialistic approach+kids+thinking they need all kinds of crap too+keeping up not only with the Joneses, but outpacing them.

I also know a young family, 3 kids all under 4, husband is a great friend of mine (actually my godfather from when I converted). He is an apprentice Electrician. If I had to guess, he probably makes around 17-20 an hour. They don't have a glorious life. Wife stays home with the kids. But, as best I can tell, they are happy. They're working towards a goal of him getting his foot in the door and becoming a Journeyman and eventually Master Electrician. He's non-Union. They do little things to make up for areas where $ might be lacking... i.e., leftover/scrap wire, he takes home, strips, and sells the copper. He strips it while they watch a dvd after the kids are asleep. No one promised him a rose garden, and after 4 years in the Marine Corps as a grunt, experience as an outdoors guide in Alaska, converting to the Faith, he is not upset about life -- he's seen and experienced worse. In short, he's a man and not some whiny little boy with a possessions addiction.

I know far too many families with huge amounts of kids to believe that the economy is the problem. The economy is a symptom of the problem. Those who have a will, will make a way. It's just that simple. Blaming someone is a bitch move. THAT's why I don't dig the so-called Alt-Right. They seem more into blame than they do solutions.

SGI talks about wasting political capital on real moral issues, but then goes out into alt-right (that is, far left) field on ridiculous immigration issues which have no historical basis in working. It's like saying, "I want to eat the whole buffet, so kick out the other folks who want to eat". That doesn't solve the problem of a national gluttony. America has ALWAYS been a nation of immigrants. If Mexican/OTM immigration is a thing he wishes to stop, taking away the incentive to come here and stay would be a good middle ground to start with. We had that in the Bracero program. Two things led to its demise: Commie agitator Cesar Chavez and mistreatment by farmers. Reinstitute the program smartly, expand it to jobs Americans won't do aside from just farming, and you might just realize Pedro would rather be here 6 months and make 3 Mexican years of wages that he takes back to Sinaloa before he repeats the cycle. Kill NAFTA and make sure Mexican farming stops dying due to Big .Gov support of domestic failure, and you might find that a bunch of Pedros have no need to come here. Engage Mexico smartly as an ally, instead of facilitating their destruction, and one might find people are more apt to stay there.

A reaction from one extreme to the other extreme will only swing the pendulum. It's doesn't turn back the ticking of our national timebomb. That would require a national reawakening to the values, morals, and lifestyle that made America great in the first place. At that starts at home, not in some political office.

[HBARleatherneck]

I know several families with huge amounts of kids (8-12 per family). All are traditional Catholics .

not all of us are catholics though.

[CS1983]

not all of us are catholics though.

One doesn't need to be, in order to have a kid. Case in point: Mormons.