Where lies the sanity within collectivist attitude like of the far-right...

Where lies the sanity within collectivist attitude like of the far-right? Both "natives" and "immigrants" have innocent and non-innocent demographics, so why should innocent people be punished?

Both your house and your neighbor's house need cleaning. Why should you only clean your own house?

What?

Can you clarify?

You should put in a few rows on the left as half shaded "potential criminals" then show the mixed group on the right side with the naive little empty headed dots.

I didn't want you as my neighbour.
You became my neighbour without consulting my wishes.
Your abject surprise at finding the neighbourhood hostile to you is a sad song no one cares about.

People are not blue or white dots.

All people have criminal tendencies (like aggression, disregard for social order, etc.), but when they reach a certain treshold they become a felony. If you have a large amount of criminals from one group, it means that an even greater portion of the group are bad hombres too.

Should I be suspicious of my friend if he is in group A?

Yes.

Yes. Around Blacks Never Relax counts black people you know/work with.

>Where lies the sanity within collectivist attitude like of the far-right? Both "natives" and "immigrants" have innocent and non-innocent demographics, so why should innocent people be punished?
Because life isn't utopian faggot.

"Oh you should get to know everybody before you judge them" said when you will walk past more people than you will properly meet in one day in a city. "Ignore the pattern recognition that is responsible for basically all human intelligence, live by my senseless dogma".

You don't have any non-white friends?

So what I'm reading is that group A has produced more violent people and are more likely to have another in the future vs group b.
So why would I want to intermingle with the group with the highest potential to have another criminal that might target me? To spare their feelings? Fuck that

By that logic, does that mean white people will return to colonization?

Is this seen as deep over in burgerland?

I do, but I bear in mind that they're not white, and therefore less trustworthy than my white friends.

Far more than white friends, and that's why I know you don't naively trust all 'friends' and especially never one of their 'friends'.

>So why would I want to intermingle with the group
Is sex the first thing you think of when you see someone?

Lol he has sandnigger friends lol

This attitude is why sweden is the rape capital of Europe.

>2deep4u
I'm surprised you couldn't grasp the underlying Kantian tones. Perhaps We've been mislead about Asian education?

This guy gets it.

The difference is who is OUR people and who is THEIRS.

They are not my responsibility. When a citizen commits an offense, he is subject to our laws. He is my responsibility.

When an illegal commits an offense it would have been better if they had not been here at all. He is a responsibility forced upon me.

no

Intermingle doesn't mean sex
It means to mix up, add together. Why would I want both groups to become one if it puts me at a higher risk?

>intermingle
I know Arabic is your first language, but intermingle does not mean fuck. It means associate with.

What if the person is legal? Is he not considered part of your people then?

If you are a Tutsi and you have both a Tutsi and a Hutu friend, which one should you trust more ?

If you think pattern recognition means reading a declining graph and theorising that it would eventually reverse course for no reason other than illiteracy then yes.

Believing in islam means killing of gays.That alone makes all of them a potential criminal.What are you, 5?

>be punished?
You dont have a right to come to this country

Boy, is that pic really how you see things? No wonder you can't solve migrant crime problems. Because you are unable to distinguish group differences.

It would because the west is running out of resources and the major motivator behind colonization was material gain.
Can someone answer these quads? Are legal immigrants considered part of your people or not?

>Are legal immigrants considered part of your people or not?
Nope.

It would be nice if the government somehow operated in the service of the people from whom it took its resources but this is not always the case, nor is it the case that the intellectuals who end up making up the government see it as their role to respect the population's wishes in certain area. More precisely, it may very well be the case that said intellectual believe their task to be to take the population to a point which they and they alone deem correct, all the while considering the population's wishes to be illegitimate.

All of this lead to the following: a government may grant citizenship to individuals who are never the less not part of the historical group or groups that make a country.

Why do you think people should feel entitled to bring us down genetically?

It's about risk mitigation. There's no need to expose yourself to extra risk if it isn't necessary, is there? Especially when what you stand to lose is your freedom/civilization.

I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to think that 100% of blacks are thugs, or that 100% of Muslims are terrorists; we're all aware of the outliers to the trend. But what is very obvious, is that a higher number of blacks ARE thugs, and a higher number of Muslims ARE terrorists.

Individuals can be judged on an individual basis, and that's perfectly fine, in-fact it's the perfectly rational response when dealing with people. But when we make economic policies, or immigration policies, we're not dealing with individuals, we're dealing with large groups of people with discernible trends in their behavior.

Say you had to draw names from a hat to decide your next business partner. The hats are representative of their respective races, and the individual names in the hat make a statistically representative group of people. Drawing from the black hat, you're more likely to get a criminal, a thug, a drug-dealer/user, or someone who is uneducated. So the question is: why would you EVER knowingly draw from the black hat? Sure, you might get an outliers, and you could consider yourself lucky, great. But with a large enough sample size, repeatedly drawing from the black hat is going to get you more duds than the white hat... that's immigration.

So what happens to people in the black hat? Those who aren't duds?

They drew the shit end of the stick. It sucks for them, but that's the way the world works. We can't play immigration lottery hoping that we consistently get outliers.

What more is there to say? It's shitty but we have our own shit to deal with.

They get fucked. It sucks and it isn't fun. Welcome to life.

They need to first address the problems in their own community. The white race is obviously full of retards just like any other race but they aren't disproportionately responsible for crime and illiteracy rates. It's a shitty but TRUE fact of life right now that for every Neil Degrasse Tyson there is a million fucking Jamal's robbing liquor stores. It would be ignorant to assume that all black people are stupid or criminals, however, acting like there isn't a problem in the black community is hardly helpful and laying that problem solely at the feet of white men and women because of some invisible force of structural racism is outright intellectual dishonesty.

How do you determine decent immigrants are outliers?

You don't bother, because you don't allow them to immigrate in the first place for every reason mentioned above.

If you do think that some system exists that would allow us to easily separate the chaff, you would probably be deemed a 'racist' for suggesting such a thing, as with DJT and his 'extreme vetting' remarks recently.

On top of that, if you were able to develop such a system, that you could consistently siphon the smartest people from the poorest countries, you have to ask yourself the question: how does that really help those countries? brings up a great point, the smartest people who belong to these groups have to become leaders within those groups, and help those groups grapple the problems they face.

Then he is a guest in your home. Visa arrangements are a contract that the individual will maintain certain standards. If they dont fulfill that contract, citizen or no, then they are responsible for those actions and should be punished harshly.

>You don't bother
Then your statement regarding good immigrants being outliers is false if you can't prove that claim.

Consistently siphoning smart people from other countries isn't about genuine migration is it? Every country has its emigrants and immigrants, would it be fair to restrict an emigrants movement because he is "too smart" even though he believes he would function better as an individual in his country of choice?

>Then your statement regarding good immigrants being outliers is false if you can't prove that claim.

How so? I don't understand your position here, are you saying that all immigrants are 'good', or that all immigrants are 'bad'? How is coming to the conclusion that immigration from predominantly black/Muslim countries is a flawed policy in contrast with my claim that not all immigrants are necessarily criminals/terrorists? Like I said earlier, you would have to be an idiot to think that it's all one, or the other. But that's what the hat analogy is about, it's not about if they're all good or bad, just that some groups aren't as good as others.

We know that gifted blacks do exist, but we also know that they're a hell of a lot less common than gifted whites.

>would it be fair to restrict an emigrants movement

In what sense? The country they're migrating to, or the country their migrating from? People should be free to migrate from any country they want (although they may not get the opportunity), but that doesn't mean they should be free to migrate TO any country they want. No country is under any obligation, moral or otherwise to accept people from other countries, why would they be?