Mass Immigration = Genocide

DO NOT Argument semantics or the wording of the debate. If you fail to address the primary point you forfeit the debate by default. The primary point of this debate is to discuss the potential association/correlation/equivocation between mass immigration and genocide. Definitions to be used for Debate: Mass Immigration; from the host countries perspective this is relative to host country size; mass migration is any migration that can cause major long term changes in ethnic % ratios in a society. Thus note immigration within certain limit does not constitute mass immigration. Genocide; Expanded UN definition of genocide including, "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." Before we begin it is important to note that for a majority to be a victim of genocide it must first be made minority. Being made a minority is the first step. The only way this would be otherwise if is you killed off an entire race all at once which is thankfully impossible barring destruction of the Earth. Argument 1: Immigration Policy is Deliberate: Immigration policy is decision based and in the hands of the government. Immigration policy is a mechanism that deals directly with the ethnic make-up of the given population. Thus immigration is a deliberate policy in regards to population and any results and consequences to the population are also implicitly deliberate since they could be avoided simply by changing the existing policy. Failure to adopt a new policy as in response to current results directly implies current results are the deliberate goals of the policy. If so thus deliberate then this constitutes genocide under the UN international definition. Argument 2: Declining Population is Self Evident; Example: -Population Group A has a crude net birth rate of .43 ; (No mass immigration, older average population and so higher death rate, and less children per women), -Population has a net Birth rate 2.4; (includes mass immigration, many young, more children per women) The result is the changing demographics we see in the US and Europe where the US white population has decline by about 15% and projected to drop another 10% over the next 25 years. In Europe countries that were historically basically 100% white are now nearing 90% (Germany 91.5%). It should be quite clear that if this trend continues whites will be an ever smaller % in their own homeland, eventually lose the right to self determination, and sovereignty since these countries are governed by democracy and that requires majority. There is no reason to think this trend will reverse either as mass immigration only continues and it is often even taboo to speak of it in public negatively. There is only evidence it shall continue as it has mostly since 1990 if not 1980. Important Note; if the trend is of decreasing white % of population now it is only more likely to accelerate as white population declines as it becomes more and more difficult for whites to find white partners and there is more and more social and physical (numbers) pressure to have a mixed partner. Leading to argument 3. Argument 3; Minoritization further decreases birth rates: As argument 2 has established mass immigration and current immigration policy is creates a trend towards minoritzation this leads to argument 3 where minoritization accelerates a decline in birth rates due to 2 primary factors; numbers & social pressure 1) Obviously if your group is a minority the number of encounters you have with potential partners of your race declines drastically while your encounters with all other races sky rockets. Even with extremely strong preferences for your own race being inundated with other options and trying to make the more rare opportunities to connect with your own race count is a stress on the continuation of a unique racial group and a detriment to reproduction that will inevitably decrease birth rates for said group. At the most extreme people would rather not even go out to the local bars and clubs because it is mostly people they are not interested in. If they do go there is an extreme social pressure to not be 'racist' and even if you would prefer a white person you might feel pressured to go with the non-white who is lavishing you wish attention since the only reason you wouldn't is because... they aren't white. Leads to an interesting but important conundrum to examined carefully while keeping the reality of de facto genocide from being breeded out in mind. The only way to avoid being breeded out is then in a common diverse environment is then to be overtly racist and purposely avoid the more obvious numerous options that are non-white and make a concerted effort the approach the white because they are white. In a strictly PC society this is taboo; whites more specifically than anyone because whites are most subject to PC dogma for some unknown but without a doubt racist reason. This constitutes genocide because the situation described above is a deliberate social condition as the result of a deliberate immigration policy that has allowed for mass immigration and demographic shifts. There can be no accidentally results since immigration policy is the only mechanism government has to change a societies composition and indeed else nothing could possibly change the make up of the society except import of foreign people; with which immigration policy deals with. Any such conditions that is from a deliberate policy that decrease a groups ability to perpetuate itself is simply genocide. Because mass immigration creates conditions where whites ability to perpetuate themselves is both physically and socially hampered it is also genocide. The fact it is genocide is further illustrated by Japan; having the lowest birth rates doesn't matter. If there is no one to replace the Japanese in their own country their population could decline by 50% or more and maybe that would be better for society; but there would be no threat of genocide because there is nothing making them actively LESS jJapanese such as immigration. Note: it isn't racist to want someone your own race; this is historical reality, not merely by circumstance either, as it is demographic fact according the the US Census statistics that even in the US with all the diversity we have the majority of people marry same race partners whether they are white, black, asian, or Latino. Having an in-built preference for your 'own' is a natural phenomena closely related to how you favor your own family really but it is explicitly whites who are guilted over this; leading to point 2. 2) Of course it is not just the physical numbers and reduced encounters with people of the same race but also social pressures that reduce birth rates; see the hash tag for the 'lily' white oscars. Essentially saying it is 'too white'; this is an example of subliminal racism and guilting against white people. It is ok for to be racist against whites and say it is too white, this subliminally extends to people as well and even blacks have been known to insult people by calling them white. The result is that there is not only a physical pressure of numbers of other suitors and reduced encounters with same race suitors but also mental guilt and social pressure that discourages the continuation of a unique race/group. (In regards to the Oscars shenanigan; can you imagine someone white getting away with calling something 'too black'? And btw; blacks are 11% of the population so them not being one of the 10 nominees is not really that weird at all statistically and also there was a Latino who got nominated who they racistly grouped in with whites; note it is racist to collapse difference between people similar to how it is racist to say all blacks or asian look the same) Argument 4: Genocide As a result of argument 1 we are heading toward minortization which can only further increase rate of decline as per argument 2. The only question that remains then is at what point do you define that the white race been functionally genocided out of existence? Is it when they hit 10% 5%? When there is just a handful left or does every single white full blooded European white have to die before that technicality is achieved? The technicality should not matter; after all we call many instances genocide but the groups the victims belonged to did not disappear. Armenians, Jews, and various ethnic groups by the Ottomans were victims of genocide but they are not extinct. Clearly a group does not need to be wiped out to be the victim of genocide; in fact not even remotely. All that matters is that there is a system in place that can only result in a condition that prevents them from perpetuating their race the way they always have regardless of whether it results in complete destruction or not, Tongue in Check Resolution to Make you Think: Resolution: Mass Immigration and the policies that encourage them,are more evil and genocidal than the KKK. Why? Because the KKK 2nd form of the KKK during the jim crow era of the 1870s everyone thinks about iconically didn't even demand the murder of every black in the US but preferred their deport back to Africa. Even if they did want to murder every black in the US it would not be complete genocide as there is still an entire continent of black people that are realistically under no threat of being replace in the same manner as white people. By contrast; liberal multiculturalism taken to its inevitable extreme would genocide white people as a race in every white country where this took place. Why? Because they are being genocide in their own homelands where as other examples of genocide where no so completely global. Mass Immigration is the most evil form of genocide ever because it completely destroys a people forever unlike even mass death will as long as they still have their own homeland to repopulate.