<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Multiculturalism: Crime Against Humanity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thenationalpolicyinstitute.org/2009/09/08/multiculturalism-crime-against-humanity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thenationalpolicyinstitute.org/2009/09/08/multiculturalism-crime-against-humanity/</link>
	<description>Official Web site of the National Policy Institute</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dario</title>
		<link>http://www.thenationalpolicyinstitute.org/2009/09/08/multiculturalism-crime-against-humanity/#comment-18826</link>
		<dc:creator>Dario</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/?p=6479#comment-18826</guid>
		<description>I find it laughable that every proponent of mass immigration points to past immigration to justify it today, even though they are different in every conceivable way.

Immigration was hardly a manner used by the federal government to "help the poor countries" or replenish a particular job field that "Americans refused to do." The country was expanding westward, and needed people to populate an empty land for the benefit of the U.S. government. 

Also, for most of the time period, it was hardly "mass" immigration. Everyday Americans and politicians alike never hesitated to call for a curtailment of the phenomenon, and indeed, the United States frequently restricted levels, right down until 1965 when the current immigration law was passed and removed all quotas (which, incidentally, promoted immigration for European nations rather than African, Hispanic-American, and other third-world states). Right down to that day, the race issue was very important. The critical part of the debate was whether America would be inundated by third world immigrants and whether the racial percentage and the culture make-up of the United States would be altered.

Senator Kennedy, the champion of the bill, assured the American people that it would never happen. But it did. But since the victory, they managed to turn the tables on the debate and instead of recognizing their deceit in the 1965 debate, they maintain that somehow America was always this "multiracial" country and that it's "beautiful." No matter what they say, the fact that there were non-whites in this country did not make it "multiracial." The statistics speak clearly - it was a 90% white nation that spoke the English language and related to European civilization. It was homogeneous. Period.

I think anyone who has reasonably studied history without politically correct blinders will conclude that America has always been a European nation racially, morally, culturally. And to suggest that somehow it is "diversity" that defines what America is, or that multiculturalism is healthy for a country would be totally hilarious if this view wasn't held by such a large proportion of our political élite.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it laughable that every proponent of mass immigration points to past immigration to justify it today, even though they are different in every conceivable way.</p>
<p>Immigration was hardly a manner used by the federal government to &#8220;help the poor countries&#8221; or replenish a particular job field that &#8220;Americans refused to do.&#8221; The country was expanding westward, and needed people to populate an empty land for the benefit of the U.S. government. </p>
<p>Also, for most of the time period, it was hardly &#8220;mass&#8221; immigration. Everyday Americans and politicians alike never hesitated to call for a curtailment of the phenomenon, and indeed, the United States frequently restricted levels, right down until 1965 when the current immigration law was passed and removed all quotas (which, incidentally, promoted immigration for European nations rather than African, Hispanic-American, and other third-world states). Right down to that day, the race issue was very important. The critical part of the debate was whether America would be inundated by third world immigrants and whether the racial percentage and the culture make-up of the United States would be altered.</p>
<p>Senator Kennedy, the champion of the bill, assured the American people that it would never happen. But it did. But since the victory, they managed to turn the tables on the debate and instead of recognizing their deceit in the 1965 debate, they maintain that somehow America was always this &#8220;multiracial&#8221; country and that it&#8217;s &#8220;beautiful.&#8221; No matter what they say, the fact that there were non-whites in this country did not make it &#8220;multiracial.&#8221; The statistics speak clearly - it was a 90% white nation that spoke the English language and related to European civilization. It was homogeneous. Period.</p>
<p>I think anyone who has reasonably studied history without politically correct blinders will conclude that America has always been a European nation racially, morally, culturally. And to suggest that somehow it is &#8220;diversity&#8221; that defines what America is, or that multiculturalism is healthy for a country would be totally hilarious if this view wasn&#8217;t held by such a large proportion of our political élite.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

