> Baggers: Let's Trade. Total Implementation Of All Immigration Policies That You Desire. In Exchange We Get . . .

Sure!!! This would mean the end of Mexicans and Blacks..

Yes!!!!

Sockpuppet wrote:

Okay. We are in agreement.

What shall be the punishment for unlicensed breeding?

Death.  For them and their enablers.

Lots of dead spics and bucks and Democrats. 

I don't think this thread went well for Spanks

Sockpuppet wrote:

Why? All sounds good to me so far.

I totally agree with Spanky on this one.

Imagine living in a country without bucks.

Spanky wrote:

Strict licensing of births:

1. Minimum average IQ of the parents: 115 with neither parent below 105
2. Minimum liquid net worth of the parents: $75,000
3. Minimum parental age: 26 (F), 30 (M)
4. No history of either criminal behavior or substance abuse

No more stupid baby hatcheries = no more immigration.

Deal?

Spanky wrote:

Strict licensing of births:

1. Minimum average IQ of the parents: 115 with neither parent below 105
2. Minimum liquid net worth of the parents: $75,000
3. Minimum parental age: 26 (F), 30 (M)
4. No history of either criminal behavior or substance abuse

No more stupid baby hatcheries = no more immigration.

Deal?

No, for several reasons.

The liquid net worth is far too high. You cannot morally judge people according to wealth or income.\
2. The ages are too high, it's a entirely false premise to encourage late parenting.
3. The iQ requirements are almost ok. I'd say 110 on the part of either parent.
5. Criminality should be considered, substance abuse also, but that's a wide slippery slope of demonization.
6. more importantly there should be extra taxes for parents ( an alternative to an income requirement)
7. An educational requirement would also cover IQ.
8. Out of wedlock births should be strongly discouraged.

But with that and end to mandatory child support, alimony, and no fault divorce.

The ideal is not your odd dislike of children or families but building stronger families and communities.

Leaving the implementation of this law aside (this law would be impossible to effectively enforce)

The right to procreate is a human right, not even a constitutional right.

Spanks, you're already a far leftist, you want to be a eugenicist as well?

. wrote:

No, for several reasons.

The liquid net worth is far too high. You cannot morally judge people according to wealth or income.\
2. The ages are too high, it's a entirely false premise to encourage late parenting.
3. The iQ requirements are almost ok. I'd say 110 on the part of either parent.
5. Criminality should be considered, substance abuse also, but that's a wide slippery slope of demonization.
6. more importantly there should be extra taxes for parents ( an alternative to an income requirement)
7. An educational requirement would also cover IQ.
8. Out of wedlock births should be strongly discouraged.

But with that and end to mandatory child support, alimony, and no fault divorce.

The ideal is not your odd dislike of children or families but building stronger families and communities.

No, Abdullah, we don’t want to live in your shythoal theocracy. Fuq off.

Spanky wrote:

Strict licensing of births:

1. Minimum average IQ of the parents: 115 with neither parent below 105
2. Minimum liquid net worth of the parents: $75,000
3. Minimum parental age: 26 (F), 30 (M)
4. No history of either criminal behavior or substance abuse

No more stupid baby hatcheries = no more immigration.

Deal?

1&4 could be enforced through an aggressive spaying and neutering campaign.

Sockpuppet wrote:

1&4 could be enforced through an aggressive spaying and neutering campaign.

#4 means you go under the knife.

Diarrhetrius Brown wrote:

Imagine living in a country without bucks.

Move to Norway.  No nogs there, but it's completely cold and boring.  That's why they all go to Miami for vacations.