There's nothing wrong with immigrants. What's wrong is the old population will disappear, or be put in the perilous position of being a minority in the only territory they can call their own. Look at Ukraine while it was part of the Soviet union for how dangerous that can be - or the Rohingya, or Uyghurs, or countless other examples.
Not to mention it is in the interest of any organism, any living being, to produce descendants, so any policy that promises long-term sub-replacement fertility is dangerous from that point of view alone. It frankly boggles the mind this is something I have to explain.
>There's nothing wrong with immigrants. What's wrong is the old population will disappear, or be put in the perilous position of being a minority in the only territory they can call their own. Look at Ukraine while it was part of the Soviet union for how dangerous that can be - or the Rohingya, or Uyghurs, or countless other examples.
Americans aren't Americans because we live in America. Americans are Americans because we believe (or should. Do you?) in the Constitution and the rule of law.
Our society is based on those things, not place of birth.
One doesn't need to be born here for that. In making that argument, you're dissing our culture, society and ideals.
And which "minority" are you talking about? The Jews? The Italians? The Irish? The Russians? The WASPs? They're all minorities here. As are you. Except the part about being Americans. But you seem to not care about that part. Why is that?
"White" isn't an ethnicity or a separate grouping. Rather it's just a specific genetic adaptation to colder climates in the amount of melanin in the skin.
What's more, Natalie Portman from Israel, Arnold Schwarzenegger from Austria, Sergei Brin from Russia, Albert Einstein from Germany, Cesar Chavez from Mexico, Mila Kunis from Ukraine, Joseph Pulitzer from Hungary, Madeline Allbright from the Czech Republic and many, many others from every continent except Antarctica are all just as American as you or any other American.
>Not to mention it is in the interest of any organism, any living being, to produce descendants, so any policy that promises long-term sub-replacement fertility is dangerous from that point of view alone. It frankly boggles the mind this is something I have to explain.
And we do. The human population has grown from ~2.5 Billion to almost 8.5 Billion since 1950. I think that covers the "producing descendants" bit.
Because every human is very closely related[0]. In fact, so much so that a member of a hunter-gatherer tribe in the Amazon is likely to be more genetically similar to you than your next door neighbor or mailman[1].
And so, we're doing just fine in keeping Homo Sapiens (the only human "race" currently in existence, although broadly, our genomes also contain genes from Neanderthals and Denisovans) going -- more than tripling the population in ~70 years.
tl;dr: You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too. Yuck.
> Americans are Americans because we believe (or should. Do you?) in the Constitution and the rule of law.
I'm not American. But that's not the citizenship condition your founding fathers passed. It's not even the citizenship condition today.
> And which "minority" are you talking about?
It doesn't matter - all of them living in the US (or any other country) will be subject to the same sub-replacement conditions I argue are harmful to a nation, in the sense that a nation is not just the legal and ideological system, but also people.
> "White" isn't an ethnicity or a separate grouping. Rather it's just a specific genetic adaptation to colder climates in the amount of melanin in the skin.
You're saying human groups were separate long enough to develop different adaptations to the climate.. but no other adaptations? Despite your claim about how similar we all are, genetic tests easily determine geographic ancestry, as a PCA plot of genetic diversity shows [1]. The claim that we are more similar rests on single-gene variation, which is a meaningless test, since nearly all traits are polygenic. Even your claim about Neanderthal genes is wrong - sub-Saharan Africans don't have them. And Scientific American has admitted to putting political goals ahead of science [2], so their credibility in this area is nil.
Not to mention it is in the interest of any organism, any living being, to produce descendants, so any policy that promises long-term sub-replacement fertility is dangerous from that point of view alone. It frankly boggles the mind this is something I have to explain.