peekay wrote:
] Excerpt: ""Having made America a bilingual--bicultural
] country, having established multiculturalism, having the large
] foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology', I would next
] make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would
] develop a mantra: "That because immigration has been good for
] America, it must ALWAYS be good. I would make every individual
] immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact of
] millions of them.""
]
] It's an interesting read whether you agree or not. -Pk

If you find this "interesting" you've been duped by it. There are many ethnic minorities in countries in the world. They do not all have violent insurgency movements. Scotland is not going to declare independence from the UK any time soon. Nor is the Hawaii independence movement likely to turn violent. Violent ethnic insurgency movements in the world typically have ALL of the following characteristics:

1. Minority population is concentrated in a particular geographic area.
2. Minority community pre-dated the official nationstate.
3. Religious differences.
4. Language barrier. (Usually)
5. Minorty is either economically or politically oppressed.

Even if you have ALL of these factors, which Canada does (or at least did), you aren't doomed. Thinking that Canada is not sustainable as a nationstate was common about 10 years ago, but today that perspective is considered out dated. This fear is on the wane.

None of this has anything to do with immigration into the US. You don't have 1 or 2, you barely have 3 and you don't have 5. (And no, immigrant communities within cities don't count as 1. I'm talking about broad geopolitical regions like Ireland and not neighborhoods in a city.)

The U.S. has consumed waves on immigrants in the past and it will continue to do so, and Xenophobic movements will continue to oppose it because they don't like change. Change, however, is inevitable.