More Needless Multiculturalism Problems From Immigrants
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
The historic Mexican-American communities in California and Texas; long considered assimilated, were destroyed through an influx of Mexican immigrants. The same happened in British Columbia with the Chinese community. Even in Canada, I would imagine allowing 6 million Ukrainians to come overnight would have a similiar affect.
IIRC, the policy stated that anyone who had came from Austria from within 5-10 years before 1914 were supposed to be confined.
IIRC, the policy stated that anyone who had came from Austria from within 5-10 years before 1914 were supposed to be confined.
Maybe you never knew this but those "Mexicans" are Native Americans driven off their land into Mexico. If they want to come home then by golly they are more than justified.
Like my great uncles who were locked up unlike my grandfather who manged to bull**** his way out of it because he spoke 4 languages?
No they are not.
Aztec Triple Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or then, I suppose the Salish have the right to conquer Iroqouis lands.
Aztec Triple Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or then, I suppose the Salish have the right to conquer Iroqouis lands.
Then go pester Harper for reparations. Even though Harper's wife; Laureen Harper, probably had relatives who were also interned. Who didn't have a relative in Western Canada that wasn't interned?
No,
Aztec were just Mesoamerican.
Mexican Empire is a whole different thing and the Mexican Empire elites were mainly Criollos (Spaniards) and even then, Mexican control over California and Texas were just for 2-3 decades and the inhabitants were not Mexican but First Nations' tribes (i.e. the Navajo) who had nothing to do with the Aztec Empire.
My family doesn't need reparations. We got what we want long long ago and then again in 1982.
And who do you think it was who got stuck seperated from their tribes and homelands as the new borders were drawn? The Congolese?
Well considering what's happening to Britain and France; we don't have to worry about revenge. Western Europe continues to slide down the drain while my Eastern Europe and Finland is doing quite well.
Taxation through immigration in France and GB was a political mistake not a societal one. We don't need more heads to tax we need more labour. If the darkie boogieman is what it takes to drive the xenophobes to the good jobs then that is what it takes. The Bourgeois will never learn.
They can have their land back, but first they have to get out of Minneapolis, Omaha, Boston, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Miami, Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, New York, New Orleans, and Missoula. Notice that none of those cities was ever included within the land subject to the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo that settled the Mexican-American War.
Those folks are not immigrants. They're either colonists or expatriates.
The Darky Bogeyman is welcome if he assimilates. If not he can get the hell out.
Here's multiculturalism for you:
Scientist Imam threatened over Darwinist views - Home News, UK - The Independent
It reminds me of the story of Galileo. But Galileo lived about five hundred years ago, and we live now. Multiculturalism is hopeless.
Tatars are a foreign people in Eastern Europe and; despite them numbering in the millions, receive nowhere as much attention as a few thousand illegal Chechens in Moscow. The same could be said for the descendents of Moors; who converted to Catholicism and have remained in the Iberian peninsula and Sicily for almost 600 years.
The Chechens receive a lot of flak in Eastern Europe; because like the Chinese or E. Indian in Canada, they are displacing a pre-existing urban community and are commiting crime in previously safe neighbourhoods. Moscow was; during the 1970s, considered to be the safest city in the world and overnight is now considered the most violent.
In Canada, we should be encouraging the immigrants to build a new, self-sufficient economy (like the block settlements of my ancestors) - instead of being allowed to settle in a pre-existing community. Why were the East Indians settled in Surrey; when they could have instead minimalized the conflict and settle and build a new community in a place like Aldergrove?
Both Richmond and Surrey are just plain horrible examples of Canadian multiculturalism, where fully built cities that were White majorities were transformed within decades into ethnic enclaves.
Last edited:
While not supporting the exploitation of people in China by Chinese entrepreneurs, I have to agree with Durry that there seems to be very little difference between them and other foreigners from countries like the USA, Britain, and so on who made their money in the same way. In fact, it would be very difficult to find any foreign investor who has not made his, her, or its fortune without harming someone; especially large transnational corporations. Should Canada ask Walmart, EXXON, Cargill, etc. to leave due to the fact that they may have exploited people elsewhere in the world?
It's a behaviour we encourage. The whole point of that party in 2010 was supposed to attract non-Chinese real estate investors but it largely failed and we've been left with a massive party debt and a HST hike.
Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They were in block settlements in rural areas because for one reason, there was plenty of land to farm and Canada needed farmers on a vast empty prairie. In those days they were expected to stay separate, they were considered inferior because they weren't British. The Canadian identiy was not in flux and open to discussion like it always is now with multiculturalism. They were brought in for a job and the idea of them getting govt assistance was not considered. They were so fricking busy working amd trying to survive they didn't have time to worry about keeping their culture. Because they had no plan at all to return home.
Oh, the population fear. I think it's totally bogus. Like the constantly "looming" labour shortage. It's never now, its always coming. Fear fear fear. Think about it, we need third world labour to survive as a country? Maybe if we didn't have seven levels of EI, then a few more jobs might look inviting to people not inclined to work.
I remember one population forecast years back that our population would be zero in a few centuries without immigration. Total BS. Yet the media keeps repeating this nonsense over and over again. A big lie is being produced here.
Now the immigration issue might be bigger because after only three years Canadian citizenship can be acquired. This is not a commitment. Five to ten years is a commitment. Plus people travel outside Canada and we can't tell because they enter the USA where they can go anywhere. Unless you live in Canada for an extended period you are not a Canadian.
Agreed.
The key to understanding population growth among our population is the Malthus concept combined with our means of subsistence - which amounts to 2.1 kids, an automobile and a suburb home - none of which is attainable to most people under 30 and this denial is compounded through the existence of skilled migrants competing in our housing and job markets.
No, no, I'm just plain wrong and Generation I (Generation Internet) are just a bunch of lazy brats who are paid $16 a hour and don't work hard enough to afford the typical $2,000,000 five bedroom home in Vancouver.
Give us our means of subsistence and there will be another baby boom that would pale the boomer's generation. Come on, we only have 30 million people in a country larger than Western Europe, Mr. Harper, Ignatieff and Jimmy Patterson need to start sharing some of that gold!
Controlled opposition socialist Jack Layton isn't any help either - he cares more about vote splitting the liberals and his union buddies than the Canadian people. Gerald Celente's Mickey Mouse is starting to sound good at the moment.
The key to understanding population growth among our population is the Malthus concept combined with our means of subsistence - which amounts to 2.1 kids, an automobile and a suburb home - none of which is attainable to most people under 30 and this denial is compounded through the existence of skilled migrants competing in our housing and job markets.
No, no, I'm just plain wrong and Generation I (Generation Internet) are just a bunch of lazy brats who are paid $16 a hour and don't work hard enough to afford the typical $2,000,000 five bedroom home in Vancouver.
Give us our means of subsistence and there will be another baby boom that would pale the boomer's generation. Come on, we only have 30 million people in a country larger than Western Europe, Mr. Harper, Ignatieff and Jimmy Patterson need to start sharing some of that gold!
Controlled opposition socialist Jack Layton isn't any help either - he cares more about vote splitting the liberals and his union buddies than the Canadian people. Gerald Celente's Mickey Mouse is starting to sound good at the moment.
Last edited:
The average price of house in Richmond is $1 miillion. A deal, half the price of Vancouver. Seems like the rich are declaring war on the middle class. Pave the way for rich foreigners to come to Canada and bid up properties. Locally owned wealth by ordinary people isn;t enough to live in cities any more, which has most of the good jobs and those jobs aren't good enough any more when competing with the richest of other countries.