Democratic Presidential Debate

[Raver]

IMO it's not meant as a trick question.

I'd figured the reason you didn't respond was b/c it looked like a petty logical argument, but its implication is you can disallow immigration but you do need some rules to determine who gets to be in the country.

@xerxe may have worded it at an extreme lol but I think he's not trying to imply that if you don't acknowledge the minor genetic differences within nations that you might as well go for open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism. He's actually suggesting that implementing what you're saying won't be so simple, and might lead to an unfair result.

FYI I'm not trying to defend xerxe so much as clear up what looks like a misunderstanding. Will really try to stay out of other ppl's arguments in the future.

I'm putting together my own thoughts on the topic and will get them soon. >.<

Fair enough. The issue is my stance varies depending on the nation. Like in my nation of Canada and in the US, I don't think ethnicity should matter for immigration, but we should try to limit the number of immigrants and encourage integration and assimilation.

In nations of Europe, then it is more about Germans and Italians for example retaining their German and Italian ethnicities. I know trying to retain existing minor ethnicities within those nations is nearly impossible, which is why I think it is pointless to debate it.

[Singu]

In nations of Europe, then it is more about Germans and Italians for example retaining their German and Italian ethnicities.

Yeah, that'll go over well. You only need to add Japan to go back to straight-up 1930's axis power totalitarianism and racial/ethnic supremacy.

What you're suggesting is literally segregation and apartheid. It's not going to go well in this day and age. I guess Germany had learned their lesson, but in many places nationalistic ideas still lives on.

It sounds more like you're getting your ideas from some weird right-wing extremist sources.