Dreamers

[Traveler]

There has been discussion of late in political circles concerning what are called “Dreamers” and if they should be granted citizenship.  I am of the mind that the USA ought to be open to immigration of any individual that support the freedoms and liberties of this country.  But I also believe that anyone coming to this country – especially desiring citizenship – ought to or must be willing to live by and honor the laws of this country – even and especially the laws they personally may not like themselves.

In short, I believe there ought to be a path for some dreamers that indeed share in the dream of this country, to become citizens – but any “dreamer” that has actively attempted to undermine our laws (such as open demonstrations, or open efforts to circumvent or disobey national and state laws) should be excluded from citizenship and departed.

I am curious concerning other’s opinions and if we can have open and congenial discussion of best possibilities moving forward.  I hope to learn something – especially if there are ideas better than what I am currently considering.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

The church's various statements are full of urging people from all sides to treat everyone with dignity befitting children of God, and to act with that same dignity.  I am all for that, on every level, from all sides.

Resolving issues like this involve picking winners and losers.  It is not possible to come to a resolution without somebody losing.  This stinks, but only by accepting this truth can there ever be a resolution.

I am in favor of permanently resolving the issue of illegal immigration, even though, by definition, that means there will be people who end up having this resolution enforced on them against their will, by the government, using force or threat of force to back up said resolution.

(I'm betting anyone who thinks they have an "everybody wins" scenario, hasn't studied enough history to understand what happens to nations that don't protect their borders and/or culture.)

Edited January 25, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

In short, I believe there ought to be a path for some dreamers that indeed share in the dream of this country, to become citizens – but any “dreamer” that has actively attempted to undermine our laws (such as open demonstrations, or open efforts to circumvent or disobey national and state laws) should be excluded from citizenship and departed.

Participating in "open demonstrations", when done peacefully, is a Constitutional right. You would deny citizenship to individuals exercising a Constitutional American right? I do agree, however, that committing a felony should result in a one-way ticket out of the country for non-citizens. 

[Traveler]

42 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The church's various statements are full of urging people from all sides to treat everyone with dignity befitting children of God, and to act with that same dignity.  I am all for that, on every level, from all sides.

Resolving issues like this involve picking winners and losers.  It is not possible to come to a resolution without somebody losing.  This stinks, but only by accepting this truth can there ever be a resolution.

I am in favor of permanently resolving the issue of illegal immigration, even though, by definition, that means there will be people who end up having this resolution enforced on them against their will, by the government, using force or threat of force to back up said resolution.

(I'm betting anyone who thinks they have an "everybody wins" scenario, hasn't studied enough history to understand what happens to nations that don't protect their borders and/or culture.)

 

I have traveled a great deal and visited many countries.  I do not believe I have ever been to any country that does not expect me to respect and observe their laws while visiting their country – regardless of whatever personal opinion I have concerning any particular law. 

Essential to LDS doctrine is obedience and respect for the law and that sovereign countries have both a responsibility and right to enforce their laws.   Thus, I believe the best chance for an “everybody wins” possibility is when the laws are honored, respected and enforced equally with everybody and with the idea that no one is above the law.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Ok... If the laws are honored, and it involves government forces splitting up families and some can stay and some must leave, and there are tears and drama and scared children and nightmares and PTSD for some, I suspect you might be able to find some people who would disagree with your take on things.

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

Participating in "open demonstrations", when done peacefully, is a Constitutional right. You would deny citizenship to individuals exercising a Constitutional American right? I do agree, however, that committing a felony should result in a one-way ticket out of the country for non-citizens. 

I do not believe foreigners to any country has any right to speak either to the over through of that government or that governments laws and that such foreigners (non-citizens) can and should be forced to leave and return to the country to which they are lawful citizens.

I believe citizens have rights in their country that are not and should not be awarded to anyone residing and a non-citizen in their country – for example the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok... If the laws are honored, and it involves government forces splitting up families and some can stay and some must leave, and there are tears and drama and scared children and nightmares and PTSD for some, I suspect you might be able to find some people who would disagree with your take on things.

 

I believe that families can and should be split up when individual in such families do not obey the law.  I do not believe that someone should be excluded from jail because it would split up their family.  I can give examples of inconveniences that someone could have for speeding - but that does not mean that traffic police should not pull over such and give them a ticket.  If there is a law - I believe it should be enforced.  If we want to make an exception - that exception should be the law for everybody.  I do not think we have different laws for single people that is different for people in families.   Do you really believe laws should be different because it is inconvenient for certain people over others?

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok... If the laws are honored, and it involves government forces splitting up families and some can stay and some must leave, and there are tears and drama and scared children and nightmares and PTSD for some, I suspect you might be able to find some people who would disagree with your take on things.

 

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe that families can and should be split up when individual in such families do not obey the law.  I do not believe that someone should be excluded from jail because it would split up their family.  I can give examples of inconveniences that someone could have for speeding - but that does not mean that traffic police should not pull over such and give them a ticket.  If there is a law - I believe it should be enforced.  If we want to make an exception - that exception should be the law for everybody.  I do not think we have different laws for single people that is different for people in families.   Do you really believe laws should be different because it is inconvenient for certain people over others?

 

The Traveler

 

This is highly propagandized.

Look, nobody is restricting anybody from LEAVING the US.  So, if parents have to leave the US, nothing in the law is forcing the family to split up.  It simply means they get to be together somewhere else.

Now, if you're going to posit that nowhere else on earth is habitable except for the US then you might have a point.  But, as it stands, this statement is a highly condescending one that tries to paint the US as the only great country on the universe and it is much worse than calling certain countries feces-holes.

Edited January 25, 2018 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

"I believe that families can and should be split up when individual in such families do not obey the law."
Me too.  Those families will likely disagree strongly, and will not consider it anything close to an "everybody wins" scenario.

"I do not believe that someone should be excluded from jail because it would split up their family."
Me neither.  Any trip to any prison visitation center will be full of families who disagree strongly, and do not consider such things anything close to an "everybody wins" scenario.

"Do you really believe laws should be different because it is inconvenient for certain people over others?"
No.  Do you really believe people on the receiving end of such inconveniences are just going to calmly admit the error of their ways/their loved one's ways, and think everybody has won?

If you are thinking of people reaping just consequences of bad actions in terms of them "winning", I suspect you're using a definition of the word unshared by most.

 

Again, I support a final set of clear laws, enforced on everyone equally.  That means there will be people who consider themselves on the losing end of things.  There will be winners and losers.

Edited January 25, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[mordorbund]

In response to the quotes, but really looking for everyone's thoughts on this:

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

In short, I believe there ought to be a path for some dreamers that indeed share in the dream of this country, to become citizens – but any “dreamer” that has actively attempted to undermine our laws (such as open demonstrations, or open efforts to circumvent or disobey national and state laws) should be excluded from citizenship and departed.

Assuming that we have such a system in place, with current immigrants gaining legal status after demonstrating sufficient "Americanness", what do you think about giving these immigrants priority in sponsoring family members to gain citizenship? Their family is statistically most likely to share similar ideals, and when they don't the immigrant probably won't sponsor them.

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

(I'm betting anyone who thinks they have an "everybody wins" scenario, hasn't studied enough history to understand what happens to nations that don't protect their borders and/or culture.)

And in the interest of protecting that culture, what do you think about practices to discourage a given minority subculture dominance? Practices like a diversity lottery system to prevent a "super-minority" from coalescing?

[anatess2]

47 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

In response to the quotes, but really looking for everyone's thoughts on this:

Assuming that we have such a system in place, with current immigrants gaining legal status after demonstrating sufficient "Americanness", what do you think about giving these immigrants priority in sponsoring family members to gain citizenship? Their family is statistically most likely to share similar ideals, and when they don't the immigrant probably won't sponsor them.

And in the interest of protecting that culture, what do you think about practices to discourage a given minority subculture dominance? Practices like a diversity lottery system to prevent a "super-minority" from coalescing?

Here's my thoughts on this:

Illegal immigrants need to go back to where they came from and apply for legal entry from the Embassy.  Minor children of illegal immigrants will have to go back with them because children are the primary responsibility of parents.  Adult children who were minors when they were brought into the US may apply for legalization of status without needing to go back with their parents.  Any legalization procedures that are made within the US without going through the regular immigration process with the rest of the legal immigration applicants qualify for permanent residency but are not illegible for citizenship.  If they desire citizenship, then they need to go through the regular immigration process with the rest of the applicants.

About chain migration - citizens of the US who desire to bring dependent first generation family members (elderly parents and minor children) will get priority sponsorship but they will be required to provide financial affidavit.  All other family members can apply through the regular immigration process without priority.  Permanent Residents may also sponsor dependent first generation family members with financial affidavit for permanent residence.  Any offspring born in the US takes the status of their primary supporting parent or legal guardian.  If their parent is a Citizen then the offspring is also a citizen, if the parent is a permanent resident then the offspring is also a permanent resident, if the parent is a tourist then the offspring is a tourist, if the parent is an illegal immigrant, then the offspring is an illegal immigrant, etc. etc.

There's no reason to encourage/discourage/promote/suppress subculture.  It is a fallacy that identity groups are more diverse with each other than they are WITHIN each group.  Basically, the diversity between blacks and whites (or any other subculture) is neither more nor less diverse than the diversity among black people or the diversity among white people.  That's why it is a great tragedy that the left pressures people to conform to the group identity's supremacy over the individual identity - this is the anti-thesis to true Liberalism.  The only concern with subculture is the dominance of un-Constitutional ideologies.  Because, there's really no such defining characteristic to be an AMERICAN other than the faithful desire to adhere to the Constitution and its Supremacy over cultures.  And that's why borders, especially in the USA, is EXTREMELY important.  The borders dictate the extent of the power of the US Constitution.

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by anatess2

[Traveler]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Here's my thoughts on this:

Illegal immigrants need to go back to where they came from and apply for legal entry from the Embassy.  Minor children of illegal immigrants will have to go back with them because children are the primary responsibility of parents.  Adult children who were minors when they were brought into the US may apply for legalization of status without needing to go back with their parents.  Any legalization procedures that are made within the US without going through the regular immigration process with the rest of the legal immigration applicants qualify for permanent residency but are not illegible for citizenship.  If they desire citizenship, then they need to go through the regular immigration process with the rest of the applicants.

About chain migration - citizens of the US who desire to bring dependent first generation family members (elderly parents and minor children) will get priority sponsorship but they will be required to provide financial affidavit.  All other family members can apply through the regular immigration process without priority.  Permanent Residents may also sponsor dependent first generation family members with financial affidavit for permanent residence.  Any offspring born in the US takes the status of their primary supporting parent or legal guardian.  If their parent is a Citizen then the offspring is also a citizen, if the parent is a permanent resident then the offspring is also a permanent resident, if the parent is a tourist then the offspring is a tourist, if the parent is an illegal immigrant, then the offspring is an illegal immigrant, etc. etc.

There's no reason to encourage/discourage/promote/suppress subculture.  It is a fallacy that identity groups are more diverse with each other than they are WITHIN each group.  Basically, the diversity between blacks and whites (or any other subculture) is neither more nor less diverse than the diversity among black people or the diversity among white people.  That's why it is a great tragedy that the left pressures people to conform to the group identity's supremacy over the individual identity - this is the anti-thesis to true Liberalism.  The only concern with subculture is the dominance of un-Constitutional ideologies.  Because, there's really no such defining characteristic to be an AMERICAN than the adherence to the Constitution and its Supremacy over cultures.  And that's why borders, especially in the USA, is EXTREMELY important.  The borders dictate the extent of the power of the US Constitution.

 

 

I agree – perhaps completely with your statement.  I would add – concerning what you call permanent residents.  I am not sure I would use that term.  If a person you call a permanent resident was guilty of a felony (and perhaps other crimes) they should be deported – regardless if the crime has federal or state jurisdiction.

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

Participating in "open demonstrations", when done peacefully, is a Constitutional right. You would deny citizenship to individuals exercising a Constitutional American right? 

Okay, but I don’t want to hear another gosh-darned thing about Russian “election-hacking”.

Whats the difference between Russian citizens influencing American political discourse by spamming Facebook/Twitter, versus Mexican citizens influencing American political discourse by physically infiltrating the country and plopping themselves in front of a news camera?

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I agree – perhaps completely with your statement.  I would add – concerning what you call permanent residents.  I am not sure I would use that term.  If a person you call a permanent resident was guilty of a felony (and perhaps other crimes) they should be deported – regardless if the crime has federal or state jurisdiction.

 

The Traveler

I am a Permanent Resident.  That's the legal term.  They are also called Resident Alien.  That's also a legal term.  Permanent resident agreements are only valid for 10 years.  After 10 years, you have to renew and resign the agreement.  The agreement states that my residency renewal can be rejected by the US Fed Gov for any reason.  Also, any crimes - including misdemeanors - may end the agreement before it expires.  Even failure to present the permanent resident ID card (green card) when asked by government authorities at any time for any reason is also cause to end the agreement before it expires.

And no, this is not a conditional permanent resident status - that one is different.  Conditional permanent resident is only good for 2 years.  If the condition doesn't get lifted (e.g. foreign students in the US get a conditional resident status for 2 years after they graduate - they can lift the condition by getting a job sponsor or getting married) then the residency expires and they have to go home.

And that's why it irritates me to no end that illegal immigrants get "sanctuary" and they can't even be asked about their status.  They got more rights THAN ME!

Edited January 25, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is highly propagandized.

Look, nobody is restricting anybody from LEAVING the US.  So, if parents have to leave the US, nothing in the law is forcing the family to split up.  It simply means they get to be together somewhere else.

YES.

Look, on Monday I’m going to be asking a juvenile court judge to take a child away from her (single) dad, a meth user who failed to get clean after 18 months.  Dad, and his attorney, will weep and wail and gnash their teeth about what a horrible thing The State is doing.  And because I have seen the judge deal with other similar situations, I’m pretty sure he’s going to say “Sir, the state didn’t do this.  YOU did this.”

So it is with the ”dreamers”.  I didn’t do this to them.  Their parents did this to them, when they chose to play chicken with the United States government.  I know people find the term “anchor baby” offensive, but you know what’s even more offensive?  Actually using your baby as a (figurative) anchor for your own financial gain.  Don’t ask me to respect your kid more than you do.

I have a soft spot for those actively oppressed folks desperate enough to come here for liberty or safety or ideology; but as for those who just come for the bucks?  Play by the rules, or take your kids and go home.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have a soft spot for those actively oppressed folks desperate enough to come here for liberty or safety or ideology; but as for those who just come for the bucks?  Play by the rules, or take your kids and go home.

And here's another thing that ticks me off... "but, but, but... nobody is going to pick our vegetables or clean our toilets".  That's another highly condescending statement that even has echoes of slavery in it.  Like Americans are so snooty and non-Americans are so low on the totem pole that they're the only ones willing to pick vegetables or clean toilets and that they don't even deserve capitalist wages!  The bigotry on that is so mind-boggling that I can't believe Republicans hasn't skewered and ended the political careers of anybody who floats that narrative!

Edited January 25, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Okay, but I don’t want to hear another gosh-darned thing about Russian “election-hacking”.

Whats the difference between Russian citizens influencing American political discourse by spamming Facebook/Twitter, versus Mexican citizens influencing American political discourse by physically infiltrating the country and plopping themselves in front of a news camera?

Both actions are morally and politically dubious, but not illegal. I don't necessarily agree with non-citizens engaging in political activism. I just don't think it warrants deportation. And my issue with Russia has less to do with Facebook ads and more to do with possible illegal contact by the Trump campaign. 

43 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And here's another thing that ticks me off... "but, but, but... nobody is going to pick our vegetables or clean our toilets".  That's another highly condescending statement that even has echoes of slavery in it.  Like Americans are so snooty and non-Americans are so low on the totem pole that they're the only ones willing to pick vegetables or clean toilets and that they don't even deserve capitalist wages!  The bigotry on that is so mind-boggling that I can't believe Republicans hasn't skewered and ended the political careers of anybody who floats that narrative!

Half of that statement is arguably true. There are jobs in this country that are far more likely to attract illegal immigrants than US citizens. And yes, the work conditions and pay structure of some those jobs is criminal (or should be). And even on farms where the pay and benefits are better than most cushy office jobs, like Napa Valley grape fields, farmers still struggle to attract American-born workers. For the record, I'm not advocating for allowing undocumented workers to pick our crops. I'm merely pointing out that there is some ugly truth to the claim that there are jobs that natural-born Americans simply won't do, even for $19/hr plus benefits.

[Guest Godless]

Update: The White House announced a plan to give a pathway to citizenship to 1.8M Dreamers.  As conditions, Trump will require $25 billion for the border wall and an end to chain migration and the visa lottery system. It'll be very interesting to see how this plays out in Congress. I think the Dems may concede the chain migration and lottery measures, but not the wall funding. At the same time, I think the GOP is going to be split on both the wall (fiscal conservatives) and amnesty for Dreamers. 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Godless

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Whats the difference between Russian citizens influencing American political discourse by spamming Facebook/Twitter, versus Mexican citizens influencing American political discourse by physically infiltrating the country and plopping themselves in front of a news camera?

Both actions are morally and politically dubious, but not illegal.

The term "illegal alien" exists for a reason.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

As conditions, Trump will require $25 billion for the border wall and an end to chain migration and the visa lottery system.

I am not opposed to "the Wall" -- on the contrary, it is a conceptual necessity, and it's suicide that we don't have a secure border in place right now -- but I sigh at the ugly realities of politics.

For a fifth of the above amount, Trump could be forever remembered as the president who, during his first (perhaps only) term, took on the political, regulatory, scientific, and engineering hurdles and ended that term by giving America (and the world) a working molten salt reactor prototype, thus freeing us forever from Middle Eastern oil politics and forever making electricity as cheap as the infrastructure costs.

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am not opposed to "the Wall" -- on the contrary, it is a conceptual necessity, and it's suicide that we don't have a secure border in place right now -- but I sigh at the ugly realities of politics.

For a fifth of the above amount, Trump could be forever remembered as the president who, during his first (perhaps only) term, took on the political, regulatory, scientific, and engineering hurdles and ended that term by giving America (and the world) a working molten salt reactor prototype, thus freeing us forever from Middle Eastern oil politics and forever making electricity as cheap as the infrastructure costs.

But then he already is accomplishing that.  The US is currently set to be a net energy exporter.  So now we can have energy and a strong border.

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

I am not opposed to "the Wall" -- on the contrary, it is a conceptual necessity, and it's suicide that we don't have a secure border in place right now -- but I sigh at the ugly realities of politics.

For a fifth of the above amount, Trump could be forever remembered as the president who, during his first (perhaps only) term, took on the political, regulatory, scientific, and engineering hurdles and ended that term by giving America (and the world) a working molten salt reactor prototype, thus freeing us forever from Middle Eastern oil politics and forever making electricity as cheap as the infrastructure costs.

Americans do not realize it, but in some nations they have machine gun nests on their borders.  A wall is nothing.  I am actually in favor of militarizing the border with Mexico.  That, of course, would be HIGHLY unpopular with most today, I suppose.  If you militarize it though, you are going to have a LOT less coming across, especially once they realize that the border is militarized and by trying to cross it they might be shot and killed.  It is OUR border...and it is OUR right to let who WE CHOOSE through...not Mexico's or any other nation.

Of course, my views in regards to Dreamers is slightly different.  I would say that anyone of them that came to the US under the age of 12 (I originally thought 8, as we need a cutoff, but then thought that perhaps 12 may be a better number in regards to development) could have an easy path to citizenship if they choose.  Say, at 18, they fill out a paper expressing their desire to be US citizen, and if they became such, would cast off all rights of citizenship in any other nation except the US...and within a month would then be a US citizen.

Part of this is because most of their life in memory, or what many would consider significant, has actually been in the US.  Hence, if they desired to be US citizens, they could apply and have an easier path to citizenship.

Those who came under the age of 18 would still have to go through the citizenship process if they wanted, but would be given a priority in line to attain citizenship.  They would be granted a waiver to stay in the US while they waited for their paperwork to go through.

HOWEVER...any of them who chose NOT to become citizens...kick them out.  By choosing NOT to become a citizen, they have already SHOWN where their loyalties lie.  The above makes it rather easy for them to become citizens if they so choose.  Unless they have some extenuating circumstance, kick them out and let them go to that nation or place where their true loyalty lies. 

I'm actually for a FAR easier path to citizenship for those who desire citizenship, but pretty strongly set against those who just come to the US for the benefits or whatever, but support another nation and have NO desire to truly support our nation.

Just my thoughts on the matter...which are probably HIGHLY unpopular with many Americans.

 

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, Godless said:

Both actions are morally and politically dubious, but not illegal. I don't necessarily agree with non-citizens engaging in political activism. I just don't think it warrants deportation. And my issue with Russia has less to do with Facebook ads and more to do with possible illegal contact by the Trump campaign. 

 

I am sorry to say this @Godless (eventhough I respect many of your ideas) but I think this statement indicates so much more of a problem than any solution.  I am so upset about our current political climate that I could spit nails (or something worse).   For example, you are saying you are concerned about “possible illegal contact”.  Contact with foreign governments are not illegal!!!!!  How about paying a foreign agent to gather “false” information?  And then using that information to get a FISA warrant to break into the campaign of political opposition for any purpose – Do you have any clue why “Watergate” was a wrong.   Watergate was about gaining strategy.   The dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign and involved at least two foreign entities from different foreign governments and no one that knows the truth will tells the American people if that was in any way used to obtain a FISA warrant.  Watergate was sick and wrong – the Clinton dossier and those using it and what they have done with it - has the stench of treason.

Quote

Half of that statement is arguably true. There are jobs in this country that are far more likely to attract illegal immigrants than US citizens. And yes, the work conditions and pay structure of some those jobs is criminal (or should be). And even on farms where the pay and benefits are better than most cushy office jobs, like Napa Valley grape fields, farmers still struggle to attract American-born workers. For the record, I'm not advocating for allowing undocumented workers to pick our crops. I'm merely pointing out that there is some ugly truth to the claim that there are jobs that natural-born Americans simply won't do, even for $19/hr plus benefits.

I was born into a wealthy family but my father believed that the children of wealthy parents are a social pyuria.  So, I picked fruit, moved sprinkler pipe, thinned sugar beets, washed windows, cleaned public bathrooms and many other things by time I was 12 before there was a minimum wage (sometimes working for less than $1.00 per hour).  And I thought I had to do it to help support my family.  I was a small kid and was also bullied for wearing shabby and homemade clothes.   You are wrong – the ugly truth is that a significant part of our society are lazy, snooty and too xenophobic to even take care of themselves (care and work being synonymous), their wants, and needs.  In other words, refusal to take responsibility for who they are, how they live and what all they costs and effect everybodie else's environment.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

18 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Quote

(I'm betting anyone who thinks they have an "everybody wins" scenario, hasn't studied enough history to understand what happens to nations that don't protect their borders and/or culture.)

And in the interest of protecting that culture, what do you think about practices to discourage a given minority subculture dominance? Practices like a diversity lottery system to prevent a "super-minority" from coalescing?

I'm not familiar with those practices.  I'm generally in favor of efforts to assimilate.  America became great with the generations whose parents were born somewhere else, showed up, Americanized their last name, learned the language, sent their kids to school, worked incredibly hard, and thanked God every night for leading them to such a wonderful place full of freedom and opportunity.  That's where both my mom's and dad's family came from - and they were quite different lineages.  Chicken fighting horse racers on one side, heeders of the call to populate Zion on the other.  

I don't know what minority subculture dominance means.  But if that subculture curses America and does not agree with or believe in the constitution and rule of law, then there's a problem.  I can think of plenty of subcultures I wouldn't mind if they rose to dominance, replacing the WASPS - as long as they assimilate, work to protect all our rights, and catch the American dream.  

[NeuroTypical]

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

...a social pyuria... 

Travelerism: A word or phrase used by Traveler that leaves you a tad smarter after googling it, but not exactly happier.

Edited January 26, 2018 by NeuroTypical