Why do liberals want no limit open borders?

Because the majority population don't like the idea of becoming the new minorities yet neo liberals will defend that as a good thing to destroy evil whitey.

 

From both parties might I add, crony capitalism in its aims of keeping wages low or stagnant love the idea of population replacement. They need those corporate bonuses every year flowing don't you know.

 

I would prefer 100% rejection myself.

 

And I'd prefer a rational level that is economically sound, not just knee jerk collectivist statism to protect the feels of xenophobes.

 

If a nation has to replace its indigenous native population with foreigners just to survive its own domestic economic policies are already structurally unsound.

 

indigenous native population ? The natives we slaughtered so we could have this land for ourselves?

 

The United States was created by Europeans and a white majority, deal with it.

 

Meh - you misunderstand me. You said "indigenous." We are immigrants, mostly from Europe. There is nothing indigenous about us wrt this country.

 

When a nation and its institutional established government is created the indigenous become whoever created it. Did the native Americans create the United States government? No, I didn't think so.

 

Words have definitions. You chose the wrong word.

Indigenous peoples, also known as first peoples, aboriginal peoples or native peoples, are ethnic groups who are the pre-colonial original inhabitants of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently.

 

Native Americans are indigenous to pre- North American colonialism. The United States government was created by colonial Europeans and thus the entire territories becoming a European colonial state to which Europeans are indigenous to thereafter.

 

Well, I guess if you want to have all the words mean whatever you want them to mean, you are going to spend a lot of time trying to get people to believe your definition is the real definition over what is the commonly accepted use of a word.

Are we the pre-colonial original inhabitants of a given region? We are not.

We are overflowing with pythons and iguanas in Florida. Millions have been born here. This doesn't make them indigenous to Florida. Quite the opposite. With no natural predators, they are growing exponentially and starting to destroy the actual indigenous wildlife.

 

Did the territory of Alaska always been indigenous to Eskimo or Inuit? No, not until they migrated over there from Siberia.

Is it possible there were people in Alaska before the Eskimo or Inuit arrived? Yes there is where they were absorbed by the new Eskimo or Inuit majority where over time both groups became the new native inhabitants of Alaska.

I don't believe in things based upon them being common held view of others and that argument is stale.

 

Yes, Democrats want open borders. That's exactly the de facto result of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." The last few iterations of that bill, which almost all Democratic forum members have supported, would grant amnesty to people living here illegally. So virtually everyone who has entered the country illegally would be able to stay. How is that not open borders?

 

Our indigenous native population is already almost extinct and there is no real likelihood of foreign born residents outnumbering native born. And it isn't a matter of economic survival. It is just that we harm ourselves economically, on the whole, when the government interferes with free trade. And interfering with individual liberty and overall economic growth just to satisfy the collectivist oversensitive feels and fake fears of the "white genocide" fantacists makes no rational sense.

 

*points to previous three to four posts above*

 

They migrated, yes. Migration way back then was not immigration. They are different things.

They didn't "migrate" from Siberia (not Siberia at the time,) seeking Alaska (not Alaska at the time). They went to see what was out there. Humans are explorers by nature.
Immigration is to leave your own home to go to a new, known destination.

The earliest migration of humans had no clue as to what they would find. Someone got there first. They are the indigenous people.

I'm not sure why you are sticking to this point. You used the word in the wrong way. I'm sorry the actual definition of the word doesn't conform to your narrative.

 

All of over the west white Europeans face a future where we will be minorities in 2080 from Australia, to Canada, to the United States, and all of western Europe but you're suggesting there is no goal or aims of ethnic genocide.

It won't stop with us being minorities either because once becoming a minority we'll be absorbed into annihilation and extinction.

As for free trade there is nothing free about it.

 

It doesn't matter if there was a state present or not, and if it was a geographical region of the world before a state was created. The argument still stands.

 

Dude doesn't understand the actual definition of indigenous people. Lol...

 

I'm not "suggesting" there is no white genocide. There is none. It is a poorly constructed victim fantasy untethered from reality.

 

No, it doesn't. Not in any way.

 

They are falling for the propaganda. They are suckers.

 

You don't understand history of the word native or indigenous derives from and the formation of nation states but this is the type of lunacy we have when we exist in a world that says Europeans don't have a right to be a majority population anywhere on earth.

 

Another one worldist supporter no doubt.