Speaker to Animals wrote:
Well, what I was talking about before was allowing Americans to freely associate. Let us have black communities and white communities and multiracial communities. Let people choose where they want to live.
We could even break this out into regions where laws favor one race or ethnicity moving in rather than the others.
That's your future. That, really, is the ultimate outcome of this open door policy you are defending here. Because I don't know if you've notice, but very few Americans are happy and it's getting worse the more "diverse" the country becomes. Diversity plus proximity equals war, and to avoid the sectarian conflict you and yours has made possible, we need to find some consensus about how to let each other divide up a little and still coexist within some kind of "America".
The more diversity/more unhappiness problem is a correlation, not a causation issue. I can think of a lot of reasons why people might be unhappy unrelated to diversity.
I like the idea of more local control of laws, but think that the founders were correct when they assumed the primacy of federal laws were an important component to a well functioning, economically and militarily powerful and unified country. As such, race-based laws that vary from region to region create some serious logistic problems.
Saying diversity plus proximity equals war is a tautology. Any conflict is going to rest on disagreements, by definition. You can tie yourself in knots trying to show those disagreements are ethnic if you like.