Still no answer to my posts above, WAV. Still no satisfactory explanation of the relationship between your views and the UN definition of racism posted above either. You're nailed completely by that one aren't you? No wriggle room at all. All you can do is keep spouting the same inanities, but you can't tackle the basic truth; when judged against a robust definition of racism, you are a racist, as evidenced by your own writings and arguments here. Ignore immigration for now WAV, the UN definition doesn't mention it at all, so there is no reason why you should; your other main argument is about the arbitrary segregation of cultures. This means you would deny people access to participation in cultures other than their own,restricting them to observer status only. The indigenous population, on the other hand, would have full access to participation in that culture. Read this again, from the UN;

The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

You propose and persist in defending such a restriction in the cultural field of public life, based on national origin. Once again, based on the above definition, you are proposing a racist act, refusing to explain or recant, and you are therefore quite fairly condemned as an unrepentant racist. I would have thought someone with your professed views would glory in being called a racist, since it accurately describes what you stand for.

Once again WAV; a graduate level student should be able to argue this case convincingly, or adapt their thinking to deal with overwhelming evidence. What you choose to do is indulge in trivialisation, reductionism, personal attacks (especially on Insane Beard) and unthinking and uncritical recitation of the same discredited points. I have heard a better level of intellectual discourse among young people in their early teens, and if you were one of my undergraduates you would probably fail every course; time to shape up and come up with an adult level of discussion. Once more; I believe you are a racist when compared to the UN definition. Using the same definition, produced by an organisation you have great faith in, can you convince me that this is not true?
I look forward to a properly argued response.
Tim