The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Mass Immigration = Genocide

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 245 times Debate No: 91408
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




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;
-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.


I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. I have heard this argument again and again from the extreme right. I will explain why diversity is a good value everyone should embrace, and how what my opponent has stated is not realistic.
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."
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.
The key word in the definition of genocide is deliberate.
Deliberate-done consciously and intentionally:
The main reason why so many people would deem my opponent's statements as far fetched is because the people that would allow mass immigration to happen are deliberately wanting genocide of the white race. Does that mean that a supporter of mass migration is a supporter of genocide? Am I a supporter of genocide? No, I am not. Genocide is a deliberate offensive that is usually forced.
Also, in order for my opponent to be correct in his assertion that a mass migration would degrade the white race in numbers. I would like to state that white people are not forced into reproducing with someone of a different race. It is there choice. If a white person wants to reproduce with another human of a different race, than my opponent would deem that as a step towards genocide of the white race. Again, genocide would mean a deliberate offensive against a group. The situation where a white human wants to reproduce with another human of a different race is not a deliberate offensive.
The Link:
My opponent fails to give any empirical evidence of mass migration hurting another race. I will give evidence explaining how mass migration does nothing to degrade another race in numbers:

1. My opponent already admits " 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."
This is a huge advantage to con. My opponent knows that it is natural to reproduce with your own race. My opponent knows it to be fact that Asians and Blacks reproduce within there own race. If it is a historic fact, than it significantly reduces the chances of mass migration meaning genocide. My opponent could argue that political correctness is leading to white people wanting to reproduce with the other race. Bill Maher did an excellent talking point explaining how ultimately political correctness is selfish. I am sure my opponent can agree on this. He explains how white people use PC as a defense mechanism for all the racism whites can be associated with. PC makes an individual feel good about themselves when there not actually doing anything. I fail to see how this already selfish value would lead to a person to marry a person of a different race especially when there is already evidence of white people naturally wanting to reproduce with white people. I would argue that racism is also subconscious. What makes you think PC people haven't escaped this subconscious trait?

2. Europe:
The Amnesty report focuses on Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland - along with France, home to Europe's largest Muslim community. Anti-Muslim sentiment has helped fuel far right parties and leaders in recent years. A case in point: Marine Le Pen of France's National Front, who placed third in presidential elections on Sunday.
The report looks at the impact of particular laws, like French legislation barring women from wearing the full-face veil, or niqab, in public or girls from wearing headscarves in public schools. Amnesty argues these bans and others violate basic European rights.
"We should not forget that some rights - like the right not to be discriminated against, the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of religion, are fundamental rights and governments have the duty to respect and fulfill them," said Perolini.
Amnesty points to other examples where religious rights are being compromised. Switzerland bans mosques from having minarets. And in Catalonia, Spain, Muslims are forced to pray in streets because of a lack of prayer hall space and local resistance to building new houses of worship.
Syrian refugees has been a recent enzyme for this discrimination. This proves how mass migration actually hurts the chances of genocide of a race.
My opponent claims that our PC society will lead to genocide of the white race. My opponent has not gave any studies proving that PC white people will reproduce people of other races. I have given evidence that proves not only that a human is more likely to reproduce within there own race, but also discrimination in Europe due to immigration from the Middle East. Genocide also is deliberate. It is forced. Consenting white people that naturally want to reproduce with someone of a different race have every right to do so. It is not genocide of a group, because it is not deliberate.

Debate Round No. 1


DiogenestheDog forfeited this round.


I understand my opponent's problems. I have suffered this as well.
My opponent is free to still post an argument.
Debate Round No. 2


Argument 1: There is no accidental Genocide
"The main reason why so many people would deem my opponent's statements as far fetched is" Am I a supporter of genocide? No, I am not."

UN definition of genocide:
"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"

You do not have to be deliberately trying to commit/support genocide to satisfy the wording of "deliberately imposing conditions that result in genocide." You merely have to be deliberate about imposing the conditions that result in genocide completely irrelevant of your intentions/beliefs. You only have to support imposition of conditions that result in genocide; for example it was rare even during the holocaust or any other genocide that people consciously thought themselves guilty of it.

Argument 2: Argument from Mathematics that Mass Immigration=Genocide

The logic is very simple; if ANY whites marry non whites that would have otherwise followed the statistically proven natural inclination for a same race partner because of mass immigration then that % of white people is that many fewer white children than would have otherwise have been born. Over the course of many generation this compounds just like a compounding interest formula such that is easy to demonstrate that mass immigration can result in tens of millions of less whites being born.

Empirical evidence is not required to demonstrate mathematical logic. Right now universities are being attacked by minority/immigrant students because they have racist people in their history (Harvard). It is not even realistic to complain that such studies don"t exist at the university level in light of these facts. How could they? They cant ask such questions.
Even worse concrete empirical data actually could not be collected until genocide was already committed! Surely Con cannot suggest genocides have to be proven with empirical data because then he is suggesting genocides always have to take place before anything can be done?

Example: Lets say there is a country with 1000 white people w/ a net population growth rate of 1.87%(actual white NGR). Because mass immigration creates a society where whites as a fact of life will have less encounters with their own race and more with others; lets say 5% less marry non-white compared to without mass immigration and associated social polices/conditions.

Assuming no malthusian population limitations to population, ie size does not decrease growth rate. If we added malthusian limiters then the total number of people a country can support is more or less fixed around some limit then that makes the mass immigration = genocide more obvious since then basically we are saying there is a set number of spots potentially available in a country/society and putting immigrants in simply takes the spot away from what otherwise could be occupied by the white host population while in their home countries other peoples don"t have to share their "spots" for their race with anyone else. This will be revisited in Argument 4.
Compounding PopulationFormulas: 10 years of mass immigration
White Population without immigration after 10 years: 1000 (1+.0187)^10 = 1,203
White Population with immigration after 10 years 1000 (1+(.0187*.95))^10 = 1,192

Compounding PopulationFormulas: 110 years of mass immigration:
Value of with births without immigration per year: 1204 *(1+.0187)^10 = 7,672
Value of white births with immigration per year: 1,192* (1+(.0187*.95))^10 = 6,934

If we were talking about the 196 million US whites instead of 1000 base pop. then it would be:1,503,712,000 vs 1,359,064 whites; thus how in 4 generation almost 150 million less whites exist than would have if not for mass immigration; i.e. tens of millions as I mentioned above. Or 10% reduction in population total size.

Of course there is fault here that this VERY SIMPLE formula does not express. White growth rates will fall further the smaller the minority whites become.

Relevant Example: Today they number only 2.9 million self identified Native Americans and there are approximately 7.14 times that number who have native american blood but identify as a different race. Native Americans are constantly cited as an example of genocide even though disease killed 98% of them. Therefore so too should any group that fit their demographic fact pattern also be considered victim of genocide.

This illustrates how when population % as a whole drops low enough combined with social pressures inter marriage rates sky rocket from the slightly over 5%+ we have now at the beginning of the process and does not represent the danger we face. This is how genocide happens without a race ever technically disappearing. That 1/7 ratio sets a rate of 86% inter marriage rate for the lowest conditional. This is based on a real life example; thus "empirical."

White NGR simplified conditionals:

-if; Wpop/total = >.85, then rate = .97
-if; Wpop/total = .85 >.65, then rate = .93 (Current actual rate)
The fact the smallest population group, natives americans, is forced to intermarry more as a result of society is proving my points.

-if; Wpop/total =.65 >.45 then rate = .546 (averaged)
-if; Wpop/total = .45 >.25then rate = .344 (averaged)
-if; Wpop/total = <.25, then rate = .142 (proven by Native Americans example)

Also there are approximately 1 million non-white immigrants to the US every year and the current immigrant population has NGR of .0243; the equation for genocide from would look like:

First 50 yrs (2066)
Condition 1: -if; Wpop/total = >.70, then rate = .95
White Population No immigration 196,817,552 * (1+.0187)^50 = 497,024,000
White Population W/ Immigration 196,817,552 * (1+.0187*(.95)^50 = 472,173,000
Immigration Population 100,000,000 * (1+.0243*(.95))^50 + 1,000,000*50 = 365,560,000
Total White Pop as % = 472,174/837,734 = 50.35%

Next 50 yrs (2116)
White Population No immigration 497,024,000 * (1+.0187)^50 = 1,255,141,000
White Population W/ Immigration 196,817,552 * (((1+.0187))^50)*(.546)) = 651,042,000
Immigration Population 365,560,000 * (((1+.0243)^50)*(.6)) + 1,000,000*50 = 790,708,177
Total White Pop as % = 651,042/1,441,750= 45%

Next 50 yrs (2166)
White Population No immigration 1,255,141,000 * (1+.0187)^50 = 3,169,624,000
White Population W/ Immigration 651,042,000* ((1+.0187)*^50)(.344)) = 565,565,301
Immigration Population 790,708,177 * ((1+.0243)^50)*(.7)) + 1,000,000*50 =1,888,538,838
Total White Pop as % = 651,042/2,454,104= 34.5%

From here it is unnecessary to continue; white population has peaked and will only fall in both total # and % of the population as inter marriage rates increase like they did for Native Americans. Clearly genocide in every way possible just like the native americans.

Argument 3: Falling population % AND # of white people is the Status quo; so BoP is on Con to prove why this trend will ever stop

First the US Census does detail that white population as a total # will begin falling in the near future and this supports the mathematics above;

Because white % of pop. and total # both has been and is projected to continue fall it is up to Con to prove why this trend will ever stop since if it doesn"t stop it can only result in genocide with the presence of mass immigration per the mathematics above.

The only way the BoP would not be on Con is if genocide had to ALREADY have taken place because I cannot prove IMPENDING genocide even if the beginning are already very clearly here. For example; you could not prove in 1941 the holocaust would happen with evidence even if the beginning signs were already there because the camps wouldn"t open till over a year later. In fact most people would not even begin to believe it was real until 1944 almost 2 years into the holocaust.

Argument 4: Argument from History; Renaissance Example

If there is a malthusian limit to population then limits to one generation could lead to pop. booms in the next.

For example during the black plague 1/3 of Europe died but there was never any threat of genocide since there was no mass immigration. Instead the renaissance happened because the surviving europeans became much wealthier had many more kids to rebound the population and invested their new wealth heavily into arts and sciences.

With mass immigration the wealth of the dead whites simply goes to non whites; and the white population after decline cannot rebound because there is neither space nor more wealth for them to share because it is going to immigrants who keep the net population growing rather than every shrinking so that any host population loss is at their expense and the immigrants benefit. All this good of the renaissance and falling birth rates rebounding for a domestic population replaced with genocide as a result of mass immigration.

Tibet; another perfect example. Tibetans are being genocided as a result of immigration of
Chinese people to the extent Tibetans are being made a minority in their own land. The result is
no one is "forcing them to marry" chinese or act more chinese or be less Tibetan but at the same time it
is a social reality that you need to know chinese since everything is dictated by the chinese. Inevitabl
it means tibetans change their culture and marry chinese more than they otherwise would. "Nobody"
forces them; social reality does."


Ariesz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DiogenestheDog 5 months ago
I used every character for that post; some notes:
-The missing difference between White pop without immigration and immigrant pop + white pop. w/ immigration would be mixed race pop. Link for population growth formula website near the start of argument 2 formulas.
-Japan is another relevant example to all this; both due to its WWII and current population declines but no problems with threats of genocide since there is no immigration.
Posted by DiogenestheDog 5 months ago
I used every character for that post; some notes:
-The missing difference between White pop without immigration and immigrant pop would be mixed race. Link for population growth formula website.
-Japan is another relevant example to all this; both due to its WWII and current population declines but no problems with threats of genocide since there is no immigration.
Posted by DiogenestheDog 5 months ago
Apparently this is not uncommon...
Posted by DiogenestheDog 5 months ago
It would not let me post my debate R2 even though I tried to do it with 5 mins left; is glitched
Now the timer has run out and it says "Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options."

Why tell me I have 5 mins if I actually don't have 5 mins? I still had finals and a final project due tomorrow so today was the only day I could post.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LaughingRiddle 4 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to essentially forfeit after R1 although his conduct was commendable. Pro gave a pretty solid argument.