The uneducated can choose to not act more criminally

neither are really uncommon

They're both the basis of discrimination

I care about the group and I think we should do what is nessesary for the group's survival and prosperity. If we have to discriminate against individuals, so be it.

What group is that?

I believe that whites, and white men in particular should control society. We are best fit to do so. But there shouldn’t be any unfair advantages to that. We should be intelligent and proper enough to do it fairly, otherwise we must not be doing the best job we could be.

The idea that you have to accept someone from another country because he is not a criminal even when it goes against your own interest because "it is what the good goys do" is....

not an argument

@Kazimir Malevich Anyways, when you say based on action, do you mean it's okay to discriminate based on a committed action or the probability that one will commit that action

@The Big Oof I would wish to reduce the probability of said action being committed. However, I do not believe race or sex to be a valid form of determining the probability of said action being committed.

For example, the mutts in here constantly talk about le blacks committing a lot of crime, forgetting that the reason for that is the majority of black populations living in struggling communities a la Detroit.

Whites in Eastern Europe are poorer than American blacks

They don't have comparable crime rates

@Kazimir Malevich you're forgetting that blacks make up a minor population

@Aki You’re right, it’s not an argument, it’s how our society works, and that type of discrimination is actually already illegal. If you are not accepting somebody into a country because it goes against “your own interest,” well who’s interest is it? Is it that specific border control employee? Is it ICE? Is it the whole country? I doubt you know the interests of the whole country. But if said immigrant will devalue your country based on just claims or actions such as criminal activity or refusing to work and contribute to society, but all means do not let them in. Otherwise turning away someone with no criminal record, who is eager to work and contribute to a country, solely because they’re gay or black is unjustifiable.

And poor American whites are more numerous as majority

@Zabriskie All you are offering is a moral appeal my dude.

It's not that I'm in favor of discrimination, it's that I think it's unavoidable

it will happen

and not just on a small scale either

So instead of offering any counter or point of your own just tell me what you personally take my points for.

You can reverse the roles

Me?

No, not you.

ah

@Zabriskie Wrong, in the long term to a similar appeal of moral sense even if an immigrant provides for short term economic gain(as economies fluctuate) a demographic can never be repaired. Damage to the ethnic composition to a state is irreversible.

Making a counter point to a moral claim is silly.

@Kazimir Malevich look up transracial adoption studies

The environment excuse has already been debunked

"Neeee my moral comaps is more moral then yours"

There's a genetic component

"Reeee"

Tell me are you pro internationalism/globalisation? (globalism for retards) @Zabriskie

Well that’s why you use quotas, to keep the native population far higher than the immigrant population. That way it has nothing to do with discrimination and you just cut it off after a certain number.

Absolutely fucking not.

Interesting

The amalgation of all races to one increases likelihood of globalisation.

Quotas huh? Tell me how you'd do it

That is already a form of discrimination.

Historically speaking ethnic nationalism has broken up huge empires stomping over many millions.

I’d only allow a number that would keep the immigration population half of the native population each year.