So if the OP had said that he was glad the black people in his city were being replaced so that he could get better support for his pet political issue, you would have no problem with that?
Somehow I doubt you would say that in polite company.
What do you mean by replaced? Are you referring to an active specificly targeted removal, and replacement, or are you referring to an action which happens to cause a change in the proportion of ethnicities?
I've already said that I believe that the people should decide whether to take an action that would change the voting population, not just a decision by a single person,
And yes, an action that specifically targets people of a specific ethnicity would be a bad thing,
But not every action which has an influence on the demographics of an area wrt ethnicity is taken with the intent of influencing the demographics of an area wrt ethnicity. The influence can be incidental.
The thing I'm contesting is not that it would be appropriate for a government to cause more immigration in order to change voting patterns. Rather, I'm arguing against trying to make the topic be about ethnicity.
drdeca|10 years ago
I've already said that I believe that the people should decide whether to take an action that would change the voting population, not just a decision by a single person,
And yes, an action that specifically targets people of a specific ethnicity would be a bad thing,
But not every action which has an influence on the demographics of an area wrt ethnicity is taken with the intent of influencing the demographics of an area wrt ethnicity. The influence can be incidental.
The thing I'm contesting is not that it would be appropriate for a government to cause more immigration in order to change voting patterns. Rather, I'm arguing against trying to make the topic be about ethnicity.