Bloomberg: Send All New Immigrants In The US To Detroit

C

cstfx

"This is a country that was built by immigrants, this is a company that became a superpower because of its immigrant population, and unless we continue to have immigrants, we cannot maintain as a superpower," he said.

"Take a look at the big, old, industrial cities, Detroit, for example," he said. "They’ve got a great mayor, Mayor (Dave) Bing, but the population has left. You’ve got to do something about that. And if I were the federal government, assuming you could wave a magic wand and pull everybody together, you pass a law letting immigrants come in as long as they agreed to go to Detroit and live there for five or ten years. Start businesses, take jobs, whatever."

Detroit has seen its population fall from 1.8 million in the 1950 U.S. Census to 714,000 in 2010. The population dropped 26 percent in the last decade alone.

"You would populate Detroit overnight because half the world wants to come here," Bloomberg said. "We still are the world’s greatest democracy. We still have hope that if you want to have a better life for yourself and your kids, this is where you want to come."

http://www.freep.com/article/201105...-Immigration-key-rescuing-Detroit?odyssey=nav|head
 
Sure, so long as they are immigrants from Western nations. Then again, sending a westerner to Detroit might be considered a humanitarian crisis.

His statement would have been more accurate if he'd said "this nation was built by European immigrants".
 
People leave Detroit because of its high crime rate. No normal immigrant would want to live there.

On the other hand, if the russian, sicilian or columbian mob is allowed to move there without police interference they would clean the place in one week.

They might even turn Detroit into the Las Vegas of the midwest.
 
Quote from Artful D0dger:

Sure, so long as they are immigrants from Western nations. Then again, sending a westerner to Detroit might be considered a humanitarian crisis.

His statement would have been more accurate if he'd said "this nation was built by European immigrants".
More...

But it was not, it was built on the backs of slaves.
 
Nonsense. It was built by slaves to a very marginal degree. In fact it was very rare for a slave to be able to perform any form of skilled labor. This is just more white guilt/black pride propaganda. The fact is that one in fifty American households owned slaves and many states/territories didn't have slavery.

Quote from RCG Trader:

But it was not, it was built on the backs of slaves.
More...
 
Not a bad idea, send all immigrants to Detroit. Why limit it to Detroit though, you've got a number of Rust Belt cities that are losing residents in a hurry.

Still, it's an outside the box idea and shows some promise.
 
Even immigrants wouldn't want to live with blacks.

Blacks have no family values and zero community pride. In the end, they turn every neighborhood into a crime ridden shit hole.

If this offends you, prove me wrong.
 
Quote from Clubber Lang:

Even immigrants wouldn't want to live with blacks.

Blacks have no family values and zero community pride. In the end, they turn every neighborhood into a crime ridden nigger shit hole.

If this offends you, prove me wrong.
More...

No need. Thanks for playing:)
 
Quote from Artful D0dger:

Nonsense. It was built by slaves to a very marginal degree. In fact it was very rare for a slave to be able to perform any form of skilled labor. This is just more white guilt/black pride propaganda. The fact is that one in fifty American households owned slaves and many states/territories didn't have slavery.
More...

The economic engine of slavery was immensely powerful. Slaves were the single largest financial asset in the United States of America, worth over $3.5 billion in 1860 dollars — more than the value of America's railroads, banks, factories or ships. Cotton was by far the largest U.S. export.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2063679,00.html#ixzz1L9HKhBV2
 
Quote from Artful D0dger:

Nonsense. It was built by slaves to a very marginal degree. In fact it was very rare for a slave to be able to perform any form of skilled labor. This is just more white guilt/black pride propaganda. The fact is that one in fifty American households owned slaves and many states/territories didn't have slavery.
More...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------




http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncolorline.html


Chapter 2: Drawing the Color Line
"If you were a colonist, you knew that your technology was superior to the Indians'. You knew that you were civilized, and they were savages... But your superior technology had proved insufficient to extract anything. The Indians, keeping to themselves, laughed at your superior methods and lived from the land more abundantly and with less labor than you did... And when your own people started deserting in order to live with them, it was too much... So you killed the Indians, tortured them, burned their villages, burned their cornfields. It proved your superiority, in spite of your failures. And you gave similar treatment to any of your own people who succumbed to their savage ways of life. But you still did not grow much corn...
Black slaves were the answer. And it was natural to consider imported blacks as slaves, even if the institution of slavery would not be regularized and legalized for several decades. Because, by 1619, a million blacks had already been brought from Africa to South America and the Caribbean, to the Portuguese and Spanish colonies, to work as slaves. Fifty years before Columbus, the Portuguese took ten African blacks to Lisbon—this was the start of a regular trade in slaves. African blacks had been stamped as slave labor for a hundred years. So it would have been strange if those twenty blacks, forcibly transported to Jamestown, and sold as objects to settlers anxious for a steadfast source of labor, were considered as anything but slaves.
Their helplessness made enslavement easier. The Indians were on their own land. The whites were in their own European culture. The blacks had been torn from their land and culture, forced into a situation where the heritage of language, dress, custom, family relations, was bit by bit obliterated except for remnants that blacks could hold on to by sheer, extraordinary persistence.
Was their culture inferior—and so subject to easy destruction? Inferior in military capability, yes —vulnerable to whites with guns and ships. But in no other way—except that cultures that are different are often taken as inferior, especially when such a judgment is practical and profitable. Even militarily, while the Westerners could secure forts on the African coast, they were unable to subdue the interior and had to come to terms with its chiefs.
The African civilization was as advanced in its own way as that of Europe. In certain ways, it was more admirable; but it also included cruelties, hierarchical privilege, and the readiness to sacrifice human lives for religion or profit. It was a civilization of 100 million people, using iron implements and skilled in farming. It had large urban centers and remarkable achievements in weaving, ceramics, sculpture.
European travelers in the sixteenth century were impressed with the African kingdoms of Timbuktu and Mali, already stable and organized at a time when European states were just beginning to develop into the modern nation."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top