Mass Immigration = Genocide

Argument 1: There is no accidental Genocide Con: "The main reason why so many people would deem my opponent's statements as far fetched is" Am I a supporter of genocide? No, I am not." UN definition of genocide: "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" You do not have to be deliberately trying to commit/support genocide to satisfy the wording of "deliberately imposing conditions that result in genocide." You merely have to be deliberate about imposing the conditions that result in genocide completely irrelevant of your intentions/beliefs. You only have to support imposition of conditions that result in genocide; for example it was rare even during the holocaust or any other genocide that people consciously thought themselves guilty of it. Argument 2: Argument from Mathematics that Mass Immigration=Genocide The logic is very simple; if ANY whites marry non whites that would have otherwise followed the statistically proven natural inclination for a same race partner because of mass immigration then that % of white people is that many fewer white children than would have otherwise have been born. Over the course of many generation this compounds just like a compounding interest formula such that is easy to demonstrate that mass immigration can result in tens of millions of less whites being born. Empirical evidence is not required to demonstrate mathematical logic. Right now universities are being attacked by minority/immigrant students because they have racist people in their history (Harvard). It is not even realistic to complain that such studies don"t exist at the university level in light of these facts. How could they? They cant ask such questions. Even worse concrete empirical data actually could not be collected until genocide was already committed! Surely Con cannot suggest genocides have to be proven with empirical data because then he is suggesting genocides always have to take place before anything can be done? Example: Lets say there is a country with 1000 white people w/ a net population growth rate of 1.87%(actual white NGR). Because mass immigration creates a society where whites as a fact of life will have less encounters with their own race and more with others; lets say 5% less marry non-white compared to without mass immigration and associated social polices/conditions. Assuming no malthusian population limitations to population, ie size does not decrease growth rate. If we added malthusian limiters then the total number of people a country can support is more or less fixed around some limit then that makes the mass immigration = genocide more obvious since then basically we are saying there is a set number of spots potentially available in a country/society and putting immigrants in simply takes the spot away from what otherwise could be occupied by the white host population while in their home countries other peoples don"t have to share their "spots" for their race with anyone else. This will be revisited in Argument 4. pages.uoregon.edu/rgp/PPPM613/class8a.htm Compounding PopulationFormulas: 10 years of mass immigration White Population without immigration after 10 years: 1000 (1+.0187)^10 = 1,203 White Population with immigration after 10 years 1000 (1+(.0187*.95))^10 = 1,192 Compounding PopulationFormulas: 110 years of mass immigration: Value of with births without immigration per year: 1204 *(1+.0187)^10 = 7,672 Value of white births with immigration per year: 1,192* (1+(.0187*.95))^10 = 6,934 If we were talking about the 196 million US whites instead of 1000 base pop. then it would be:1,503,712,000 vs 1,359,064 whites; thus how in 4 generation almost 150 million less whites exist than would have if not for mass immigration; i.e. tens of millions as I mentioned above. Or 10% reduction in population total size. Of course there is fault here that this VERY SIMPLE formula does not express. White growth rates will fall further the smaller the minority whites become. Relevant Example: Today they number only 2.9 million self identified Native Americans and there are approximately 7.14 times that number who have native american blood but identify as a different race. Native Americans are constantly cited as an example of genocide even though disease killed 98% of them. Therefore so too should any group that fit their demographic fact pattern also be considered victim of genocide. hwww.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/05/elizabeth_warren_says_she_s_1_32nd_native_american_how_many_people_have_that_heritage_.html This illustrates how when population % as a whole drops low enough combined with social pressures inter marriage rates sky rocket from the slightly over 5%+ we have now at the beginning of the process and does not represent the danger we face. This is how genocide happens without a race ever technically disappearing. That 1/7 ratio sets a rate of 86% inter marriage rate for the lowest conditional. This is based on a real life example; thus "empirical." White NGR simplified conditionals: -if; Wpop/total = >.85, then rate = .97 -if; Wpop/total = .85 >.65, then rate = .93 (Current actual rate) www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/12/interracial-marriage-who-is-marrying-out/ The fact the smallest population group, natives americans, is forced to intermarry more as a result of society is proving my points. -if; Wpop/total =.65 >.45 then rate = .546 (averaged) -if; Wpop/total = .45 >.25then rate = .344 (averaged) -if; Wpop/total = <.25, then rate = .142 (proven by Native Americans example) Also there are approximately 1 million non-white immigrants to the US every year and the current immigrant population has NGR of .0243; the equation for genocide from would look like: First 50 yrs (2066) Condition 1: -if; Wpop/total = >.70, then rate = .95 White Population No immigration 196,817,552 * (1+.0187)^50 = 497,024,000 White Population W/ Immigration 196,817,552 * (1+.0187*(.95)^50 = 472,173,000 Immigration Population 100,000,000 * (1+.0243*(.95))^50 + 1,000,000*50 = 365,560,000 Total White Pop as % = 472,174/837,734 = 50.35% Next 50 yrs (2116) White Population No immigration 497,024,000 * (1+.0187)^50 = 1,255,141,000 White Population W/ Immigration 196,817,552 * (((1+.0187))^50)*(.546)) = 651,042,000 Immigration Population 365,560,000 * (((1+.0243)^50)*(.6)) + 1,000,000*50 = 790,708,177 Total White Pop as % = 651,042/1,441,750= 45% Next 50 yrs (2166) White Population No immigration 1,255,141,000 * (1+.0187)^50 = 3,169,624,000 White Population W/ Immigration 651,042,000* ((1+.0187)*^50)(.344)) = 565,565,301 Immigration Population 790,708,177 * ((1+.0243)^50)*(.7)) + 1,000,000*50 =1,888,538,838 Total White Pop as % = 651,042/2,454,104= 34.5% From here it is unnecessary to continue; white population has peaked and will only fall in both total # and % of the population as inter marriage rates increase like they did for Native Americans. Clearly genocide in every way possible just like the native americans. Argument 3: Falling population % AND # of white people is the Status quo; so BoP is on Con to prove why this trend will ever stop First the US Census does detail that white population as a total # will begin falling in the near future and this supports the mathematics above; www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf Because white % of pop. and total # both has been and is projected to continue fall it is up to Con to prove why this trend will ever stop since if it doesn"t stop it can only result in genocide with the presence of mass immigration per the mathematics above. The only way the BoP would not be on Con is if genocide had to ALREADY have taken place because I cannot prove IMPENDING genocide even if the beginning are already very clearly here. For example; you could not prove in 1941 the holocaust would happen with evidence even if the beginning signs were already there because the camps wouldn"t open till over a year later. In fact most people would not even begin to believe it was real until 1944 almost 2 years into the holocaust. Argument 4: Argument from History; Renaissance Example If there is a malthusian limit to population then limits to one generation could lead to pop. booms in the next. For example during the black plague 1/3 of Europe died but there was never any threat of genocide since there was no mass immigration. Instead the renaissance happened because the surviving europeans became much wealthier had many more kids to rebound the population and invested their new wealth heavily into arts and sciences. With mass immigration the wealth of the dead whites simply goes to non whites; and the white population after decline cannot rebound because there is neither space nor more wealth for them to share because it is going to immigrants who keep the net population growing rather than every shrinking so that any host population loss is at their expense and the immigrants benefit. All this good of the renaissance and falling birth rates rebounding for a domestic population replaced with genocide as a result of mass immigration. Tibet; another perfect example. Tibetans are being genocided as a result of immigration of Chinese people to the extent Tibetans are being made a minority in their own land. The result is no one is "forcing them to marry" chinese or act more chinese or be less Tibetan but at the same time it is a social reality that you need to know chinese since everything is dictated by the chinese. Inevitabl it means tibetans change their culture and marry chinese more than they otherwise would. "Nobody" forces them; social reality does." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet