Hi! Did someone call?
Sweeslamistan
- Thread starter Domen
- Start date
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
"Native American" is shot full of ambiguities, though. Does it mean native to North America, or native to the territory to United States of America? Does it describe only "pure" indigenous groups, or does it include métis and creole populations who are unique to America? "American Indian" at least gets around these issues by staking out a positive identity.
That's why I prefer the term Aboriginal Americans for the original settlers and Native American for folks like me that were born here. I am quite native to this land.
Actually, I prefer just "American" for everybody in America, but that doesn't seem to fly with people.
Actually, I prefer just "American" for everybody in America, but that doesn't seem to fly with people.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I appreciate the sentiment, but from an historical perspective if nothing else we need some way of distinguishing between different kinds of American. You can hardly describe, e.g. Pontiac's War if the only word you have to describe any of the contending parties is "Americans".
Power, brother.
I can't stand it when my stupid sister sends me a card on St. Patrick's day saying "Thank God we're Irish!". We're not Irish. Our parents aren't Irish. Our grandparents aren't Irish. Our great-grandparents aren't Irish. 4 of our great-great-grandparents were Irish. 6 of our great-great-great-grandparents were English. All the rest were here from the late 1600's and early 1700's.
We're American*.
And as far as I'm concerned anyone raised here is just as American as I am. You may be an American born to Guatemalan parents, but you're still 100% American.
*Except the Canadians, obviously. Just a bunch of Socialist Ice Loggers as far as I'm concerned
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Well, I don't really know what the problem with immigration is. If you've got a border, it seems a trivially easy thing just to police it. It might cost money to do so, but if that's what you want then go for it. I honestly cannot understand how the UK government cannot get the figures on how many people come into Heathrow and how many leave. This seems totally bizarre to me. The airlines all know who they're transporting, how come the government doesn't? Let me kick this one into the long grass, a moment. How about if the government just asked the airlines?
As for illegal immigrants working, simply don't give them any jobs. And if you can't distinguish immigrants from the "natives", then issue the "natives" with unforgeable identity papers. Or an implant behind the ear. Whatever.
But does any of this happen? No! Seems to me people just like bellyaching for the sake of it.
As for the Swedish ruling elite deliberately importing immigrants into the country to claim benefits and vote for those promoting the benefit system, thereby keeping the ruling elite in power ... isn't this just a plainly ludicrous idea?
Tsk! Let me know when you've all made up your minds.
/rant
As for illegal immigrants working, simply don't give them any jobs. And if you can't distinguish immigrants from the "natives", then issue the "natives" with unforgeable identity papers. Or an implant behind the ear. Whatever.
But does any of this happen? No! Seems to me people just like bellyaching for the sake of it.
As for the Swedish ruling elite deliberately importing immigrants into the country to claim benefits and vote for those promoting the benefit system, thereby keeping the ruling elite in power ... isn't this just a plainly ludicrous idea?
Tsk! Let me know when you've all made up your minds.
/rant
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
The projection for 2014 in Sweden - asylum seekers only, immigration through family ties not included - 75000 to 89000. That's closing in to 1% a year of the Swedish population. Not educated or skilled labourers - it's asylum seekers mainly from Eritrea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia. There's no debate at all in Sweden about how this will affect the economy. It was noted that the increased rate would mean it would cost more money the coming years. This was immediately shot down as being a foolish comment since it potentially might increase hostility against immigrants.
7 parties agree on this, relative to the rest of the world, extreme intake of asylum seekers. One party - the Swedish Democrats - is against and have gained popularity during recent years. They and all who seem to be supportive of them are labelled racists or semifascists by the Swedish media and the politicians. This party can't fill the seats from their voter base because it's practically social- and career- suicide to state support for them.
7 parties agree on this, relative to the rest of the world, extreme intake of asylum seekers. One party - the Swedish Democrats - is against and have gained popularity during recent years. They and all who seem to be supportive of them are labelled racists or semifascists by the Swedish media and the politicians. This party can't fill the seats from their voter base because it's practically social- and career- suicide to state support for them.
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
I'm upset because it's not debatable in Sweden. It's an extreme situation which isn't sustainable. No other nation has the same situation. Even if the asylum seekers are a fraction of the Swedish number, there's a debate how to handle it and how it will influence society. In Sweden it's racist to question the large intake. Does it upset you that I find this absurd?
Edit: This is how it generally goes. People question if the Swedish situation really is extraordinary. Numbers are presented and the question shifts to a moral one. Check your privilege?
Edit: This is how it generally goes. People question if the Swedish situation really is extraordinary. Numbers are presented and the question shifts to a moral one. Check your privilege?
crabapple
I am watching
what source is this asylum seeker number?
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
What number are you questioning?
crabapple
I am watching
useless
Social Justice Rogue
As before, cite those sources.
The same claim was made of how Britain etc are going to be overrun with Muslims, by [Insert date] and those all turned out to be jokes and simply bigoted fear mongering.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Date inserted. Source:
http://www.cpa.org.uk/information/r...ethnicminoritypopulationofenglandandwales.pdf
2050 is too soon when it comes to Britain:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050/13690
crabapple
I am watching
Its a myth that the Swedish border is wide open, people gets rejected of asylum status all the time, which often extremely tragic for the people involved, death and imprisonment upon returning to their home country...
useless
Social Justice Rogue
In your own PDF you linked it says this on page 7:
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Crabapple,
One of videos in the OP says that Iraqi Christians get rejected, while Iraqi Muslims get accepted.
Those Iraqi Christians who got rejected in Sweden, have been massacred by ISIS fanatics.
One of videos in the OP says that Iraqi Christians get rejected, while Iraqi Muslims get accepted.
Those Iraqi Christians who got rejected in Sweden, have been massacred by ISIS fanatics.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,652
So you're criticising it because they didn't invent a time machine to go forward and actually check for sure? All that is saying is basically defining what a projection is, which surely we all already understand.
crabapple
I am watching
I am not going to discuss your paranoid delusions about the so called "islamisation" with you. Maybe you should e-mail Brevik instead, I am sure he is happy to oblige
Similar threads
