NationStates Jolt Archive

What does that have to do with anything?


Just a question......

My knowledge is that when you apply for the for that citizenship, its no tthat difficult. The difficult part is waiting your turn to get the go ahead to remain here or come here. The fact that you ahve so many venues to come up here, as a student, as a worker and such. Point is, we dont want to make it so easy a person who has a record can get in here.
Still not answering my question (No surprise). And no, applying for citizenship is not a walk in the park, nor is it really easy to suddenly change from one visa type to another.

You keep talking about the wait times, the wait times are, on average, 7 years. That's a long time when you're trying to find a job to feed your family. The rich can afford to wait, the poor cannot. The poor cannot even afford the visa fees in the first place (Or you tell me, how is a man making $20 a day substance afford $2,000?).

But then 10 million more will come across. What do you do about that?
legalise them too. Welcome them to the consumer pool. Welcome the extra jobs they create with the demand for goods and services they bring (10 million people don't just come and live naked off sunlight). Welcome the human capital. Welcome the 10 million more citizens to tax. Whatever you want. More people in your country is always a good thing.

Quoted directly from you (You know, copy and paste). So what did I get wrong?


By taking it's meaning out of context...Using it in a way I never intended it to be used.


Yes, they did. They came in under false pretenses. That's called sneaking. Tiptoeing across is just one method of sneaking. Using false credentials, whatever, it's still sneaking in to live in the US without a proper visa.


Thats called lying. Sneaking is coming in under the cover of night and the government having no clue you are here.


There's a wonderful thing called the modern news media and the Internet. You might want to check up on it.


Classy man you are.


Ok, you tell me what the difference is. Please, go right ahead because I would so like to hear this supposed difference.



:rolleyes:

Coming in on a Visa means the government knew you were here for a period, sneaking in means the government had no clue you were here or any record of you being here.


You're the one with the notion that sneaking somehow means digging tunnels. Say what you mean clearly, or else explain yourself. Don't sit there bitching about how "You don't understand me" because I ain't a mind reader bub so I can only use your words.




Already tried, you don't listen.


Since you can't read minds maybe you should have....oh lets say..ASK!

Doesnt matter, this is now, not a hundred years ago. Times have changed. Why dont you keep up with the now times huh? Point is the laws you are referring to are the ones of the 1930s and 1940s. Do you even realize that those laws have been changed? Didnt think so.
Oh I KNOW those laws have changed. As a matter of fact, I know the laws that just got changed because they managed to screw my wife and I over. That's where I'm getting my experience from, I'm IN the bloody immigration system right now. And, once again, where do you pull YOUR experience from?

A lot of different systems have flaws, does that mean we get rid of it? No. Does that mean we should just open our borders to the flood gates? Hardly. Yes we are a immagration nation, but that does not mean we shouldnt have a system of laws and regulations to control that system of entry.
Yeah, it doesn't work, it hurts people, and it causes more problems than it fixes, but dang gum, we're keeping it anyway... does that make any sense at all? I've never called for opening the gates, I've simply called for reform for the current system that isn't working. 6 month initial application processing times are not good things. Fees that cause financial hardships without guarantee are not good things. Regulations so convoluted that no one knows what the hell they mean or what's going on any given day are not good things.

The system is broke, it needs to get fixed.

Just a question......
BA, Secondary Education: English; Computer Education, Japanese Studies
MS, Counseling and Educational Psychology with emphasis in Information Technologies in Education, University of Nevada, Reno.

Oh I KNOW those laws have changed. As a matter of fact, I know the laws that just got changed because they managed to screw my wife and I over. That's where I'm getting my experience from, I'm IN the bloody immigration system right now. And, once again, where do you pull YOUR experience from?


Yeah, it doesn't work, it hurts people, and it causes more problems than it fixes, but dang gum, we're keeping it anyway... does that make any sense at all? I've never called for opening the gates, I've simply called for reform for the current system that isn't working. 6 month initial application processing times are not good things. Fees that cause financial hardships without guarantee are not good things. Regulations so convoluted that no one knows what the hell they mean or what's going on any given day are not good things.

The system is broke, it needs to get fixed.



It will NEVER get fixed as long as the duocrapopoly is in charge. All the dems and reps see is votes and tons of em! Want it fixed? Vote against them.

BA, Secondary Education: English; Computer Education, Japanese Studies
MS, Counseling and Educational Psychology with emphasis in Information Technologies in Education, University of Nevada, Reno.



I knew you needed a BA in something to get into the JET programme. I only have an A.S. in Drafting.....

By taking it's meaning out of context...Using it in a way I never intended it to be used.
If you wrote a long paragraph, I would give you credit, but for four lines? No.

Thats called lying. Sneaking is coming in under the cover of night and the government having no clue you are here.
:rolleyes:
sneak /snik/ [sneek]
sneaked or snuck, sneak·ing, noun
–verb (used without object)
1. to go in a stealthy or furtive manner; slink; skulk.
2. to act in a furtive or underhand way.
3. British Informal. to tattle; inform.
–verb (used with object)
4. to move, put, pass, etc., in a stealthy or furtive manner: He sneaked the gun into his pocket.
5. to do, take, or enjoy hurriedly or surreptitiously: to sneak a cigarette.
–noun
6. a sneaking, underhand, or contemptible person.
7. Informal. a stealthy or furtive departure.
8. British Informal. tattletale; informer.
9. sneaker (def. 1).
10. Informal. a sneak preview.
11. Cards. the lead of a singleton in a suit other than the trump suit, as in whist.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sneaking

Check your meaning, 'cause it sure looks like that's what they are doing to me.

BTW, if the border is so open and free, how do you suppose the government knows that they are here?

Classy man you are.
Stop trying to play the, "You weren't THERE man! You don't understand!" card then.

Coming in on a Visa means the government knew you were here for a period, sneaking in means the government had no clue you were here or any record of you being here.
See above.

Already tried, you don't listen.


Since you can't read minds maybe you should have....oh lets say..ASK!
Maybe you could, oh, I don't know, write what you mean then!

It will NEVER get fixed as long as the duocrapopoly is in charge. All the dems and reps see is votes and tons of em! Want it fixed? Vote against them.
I'm working on it!

I knew you needed a BA in something to get into the JET programme. I only have an A.S. in Drafting.....
For JET, yeah, there's a few other programs that don't require the 4 year, but they're fairly dodgy and have a bad rep of standing people in the country after they fly by night.

I'm working on it!



And how is that going in TOKYO! Vote via absentee ballot?

For JET, yeah, there's a few other programs that don't require the 4 year, but they're fairly dodgy and have a bad rep of standing people in the country after they fly by night.



4 year? That means a 2 year technical BA college degree would not be a good thing?

And how is that going in TOKYO! Vote via absentee ballot?
Of course. I get mine every election, I wouldn't miss it (and it's Nagano).

4 year? That means a 2 year technical BA college degree would not be a good thing?
JET probably wouldn't take it unless said university's degree is an equal equivalent. Some of the other AET programs probably would though.

Create an American Foreign Legion. It would solve troop shortages, get a chance for immigrants to bypass all the red tape to receive citizenship, gives them a chance to prove their loyalty to the US, gives them a chance to learn English and American culture before being let loose into society and gives them a decent paycheck compared to some crap minimum wage job a unethical employer would underpay them for.

Start leveling real penalties on companies that hire illegals, and when I say real penalties, I mean the kind of penalties that will put some companies out of business. And add criminal penalties to the CEOs and other officers of the companies as well. Throw some of the employers in jail, and those companies will suddenly get a lot more cautious about who they're hiring, and jobs for illegals will dry up.

Of course, that will be immediately followed by calls for freer immigration laws from the companies that were previously hiring illegals.
Nazz, you have hit the nail on the head. I was going to have some serious landscaping done and I wanted it done by legals. Out of the six companies that I called and asked the simple question, "Can you guarantee that all your workers are in this country legally?", only two would do so. There's no incentive for the others to do the same. Not until we start enforcing the laws against employing illegals, anyway.

Start leveling real penalties on companies that hire illegals, and when I say real penalties, I mean the kind of penalties that will put some companies out of business. And add criminal penalties to the CEOs and other officers of the companies as well. Throw some of the employers in jail, and those companies will suddenly get a lot more cautious about who they're hiring, and jobs for illegals will dry up. You know, your crisp logic is refreshing in these forums.

Of course, that will be immediately followed by calls for freer immigration laws from the companies that were previously hiring illegals. Which will of course come to be, once the companies waddle their way over to the big white bordello in DC.

Of course. I get mine every election, I wouldn't miss it (and it's Nagano).



It was a joke...:p

It was a joke...:p
Sorry, it's just.... eww... Tokyo... Soul sucking place that is. :p

Sorry, it's just.... eww... Tokyo... Soul sucking place that is. :p



Whats wrong with tokyo?

Still not answering my question (No surprise). And no, applying for citizenship is not a walk in the park, nor is it really easy to suddenly change from one visa type to another.

You keep talking about the wait times, the wait times are, on average, 7 years. That's a long time when you're trying to find a job to feed your family. The rich can afford to wait, the poor cannot. The poor cannot even afford the visa fees in the first place (Or you tell me, how is a man making $20 a day substance afford $2,000?).

So advocating breaking the law is ok then? And by the way I DID answer your question, you didnt like how i answered it because it doesnt fit your view. Doesnt matter if you are rich or not, you wait your turn, its called being fair to all the other rich and poor immigrants. Sounds liek you want special treatment to me...

Oh I KNOW those laws have changed. As a matter of fact, I know the laws that just got changed because they managed to screw my wife and I over. That's where I'm getting my experience from, I'm IN the bloody immigration system right now. And, once again, where do you pull YOUR experience from?

My own family experience and friends. I mean what makes us believe you anymore then you would believe us?


Yeah, it doesn't work, it hurts people, and it causes more problems than it fixes, but dang gum, we're keeping it anyway... does that make any sense at all? I've never called for opening the gates, I've simply called for reform for the current system that isn't working. 6 month initial application processing times are not good things. Fees that cause financial hardships without guarantee are not good things. Regulations so convoluted that no one knows what the hell they mean or what's going on any given day are not good things.

Do you know why they have those time waits? Or those fees? Or no guarantees? Do you? They are there for the simple fact that they dont just let anyone in who has a record of criminality, making sure that same system of regulating is up and funded. We all have financial hardships, that is not going to make me cry for them at all. Frankly that is a poor excuse in my opinion. Any system needs reform, but what you make it sound to me is you would rather just let them flow in....

The system is broke, it needs to get fixed.

And how would you do this? Please give me some examples of what is needed to be removed and reformed?

Whats wrong with tokyo?
Imagine a city with almost no greenery, the architectural style is big block, the roads don't make sense, and the idea of city planning is laughed at, meaning everything is next to everything else with no sense of rhyme or reason. Now imagine this going one for miles and containing over 20 million people in its metropolitan area, and you have Tokyo.

It's really fun to visit, but I always feel SO happy when I get back home to Nagano.

So advocating breaking the law is ok then? And by the way I DID answer your question, you didnt like how i answered it because it doesnt fit your view. Doesnt matter if you are rich or not, you wait your turn, its called being fair to all the other rich and poor immigrants. Sounds liek you want special treatment to me...
Where did I EVER advocate breaking the law? And no, you haven't answered my question about where your knowledge comes from. You make vague notions but nothing to show me you know what you're talking about.

And no, the system is not good for poor immigrants because the poor immigrants can't even afford to try in the first place.

Imagine a city with almost no greenery, the architectural style is big block, the roads don't make sense, and the idea of city planning is laughed at, meaning everything is next to everything else with no sense of rhyme or reason. Now imagine this going one for miles and containing over 20 million people in its metropolitan area, and you have Tokyo.

It's really fun to visit, but I always feel SO happy when I get back home to Nagano.


Thats alot of Asian people. I much rather go to New York. If NY doesn't have it, it may not exist.


To prevent a threadjack, answer Earabia.

Where did I EVER advocate breaking the law? And no, you haven't answered my question about where your knowledge comes from. You make vague notions but nothing to show me you know what you're talking about.

And no, the system is not good for poor immigrants because the poor immigrants can't even afford to try in the first place.


Thats a HUGE bad side to this, some of these people get such low paying jobs they have to bundle up into groups of 20 just to have a home, in subhuman conditions, get misstreated by employers. The current system is NOT humane. A good first step is to seal the border with Mexico, and start a guest worker program. ATleast then you can know who is coming in, monitor them and make sure they get a fair wage and good working conditions.

My own family experience and friends. I mean what makes us believe you anymore then you would believe us?
Because unlike you I actually answer the bloody question with details.

Do you know why they have those time waits? Or those fees? Or no guarantees? Do you? They are there for the simple fact that they dont just let anyone in who has a record of criminality, making sure that same system of regulating is up and funded. We all have financial hardships, that is not going to make me cry for them at all. Frankly that is a poor excuse in my opinion. Any system needs reform, but what you make it sound to me is you would rather just let them flow in....
You really have no notion of what the system is currently checking or the burdens placed upon those who want to immigrate do you?

Again, how is someone making $20 a day supposed to afford the fees? I make good money here in Japan, I also have a very understanding boss who is more than happy to let me have time off to get to the US Embassy with my wife to help her immigrate. We are very lucky in that regards (We also don't have to wait for a visa number), but many people who want to immigrate, people with no criminal record, who want to come in to work hard and support their family, are unable to do so because they don't have such nice jobs that pay such good money.

And how would you do this? Please give me some examples of what is needed to be removed and reformed?
:rolleyes: Did you even bother to read the thread BEFORE you started, because I've already posted what I think should happen.

Thats a HUGE bad side to this, some of these people get such low paying jobs they have to bundle up into groups of 20 just to have a home, in subhuman conditions, get misstreated by employers. The current system is NOT humane. A good first step is to seal the border with Mexico, and start a guest worker program. ATleast then you can know who is coming in, monitor them and make sure they get a fair wage and good working conditions.
Which is why I was advocating making sure that the jobs here in the US are paying what they are supposed to be paying and that any company caught heiring illegals or exploiting them should face some serious consequences, not the slap on the wrist, "Tisk, tisk, don't do that again" that is the current practice.

The only way you're going to stop the flow is by 1. Making it easier to get in. 2. Making sure there's no jobs here for them when they do get in. 3. Making it so that they don't want to leave home (i.e. invest more in Mexico and South America).

I mean, honestly, what idiot wants to try to run across a desert where there's a good chance they'll die to a country that they can't live legally in, meaning that at any time they could be arrested, and do so by leaving their family behind?

Which is why I was advocating making sure that the jobs here in the US are paying what they are supposed to be paying and that any company caught heiring illegals or exploiting them should face some serious consequences, not the slap on the wrist, "Tisk, tisk, don't do that again" that is the current practice.

The only way you're going to stop the flow is by 1. Making it easier to get in. 2. Making sure there's no jobs here for them when they do get in. 3. Making it so that they don't want to leave home (i.e. invest more in Mexico and South America).

I mean, honestly, what idiot wants to try to run across a desert where there's a good chance they'll die to a country that they can't live legally in, meaning that at any time they could be arrested, and do so by leaving their family behind?




The answer to your last question...Mexicans. They do that now. They risk life and limb to sneak in here. Even if you take away the jobs that wouldn't stop them, they would still risk it. Gotta slow them down and prevent a huge flow, a temp wall is fine by me.

Once that and the quest worker program is done, you can put pressure on mexico to step up in fixing their issues. Investment can only go so far, Mexico needs to go the extra mile once they get it. Because they have gotten it both ways, I have seen their economic numbers.

Anyway, my solution is fairly simple minded: Make legal immigration easier. Remove some of those 98+ forms that one needs. Remove the fees for immigration. Stop treating immigrants (no matter where they're from) as if they're terrorists.

But I expect to hear a lot of plans about barbed wire and tanks. Let's hear em.

I would think helping Mexico become a prosperous enough country where they all moved back might actually be cheaper and more desirable

The Europeans have just as big a problem ... maybe they should work on fixing Africa and Turkey. They broke both after all during the Colonial period and during and after World War I.

The answer to your last question...Mexicans. They do that now. They risk life and limb to sneak in here. Even if you take away the jobs that wouldn't stop them, they would still risk it. Gotta slow them down and prevent a huge flow, a temp wall is fine by me.
See, that's my point though. Right now there is NO reason for them to go through legal channels because a. it's too difficult if not impossible to get through them and b. the jobs are waiting. As long as conditions a and b exist, no wall on the planet will keep them out.

Japan, which is a series of islands in the middle of the Pacific, has an illegal immigrant problem as well. If they can make it across miles of ocean, I highly doubt that a wall is going to stop them.

Once that and the quest worker program is done, you can put pressure on mexico to step up in fixing their issues. Investment can only go so far, Mexico needs to go the extra mile once they get it. Because they have gotten it both ways, I have seen their economic numbers.
I didn't say dump the money, invest it. Manage it.

See, that's my point though. Right now there is NO reason for them to go through legal channels because a. it's too difficult if not impossible to get through them and b. the jobs are waiting. As long as conditions a and b exist, no wall on the planet will keep them out.



But a wall does slow them down and decrease the numbers. Not stop the all together, but slow them down and decrease the number. Companies are being attacked for hiring illegals, but its the pourus border and a crooked mexican government that makes this hard. You know how many workers mexico loses each year?

Japan, which is a series of islands in the middle of the Pacific, has an illegal immigrant problem as well. If they can make it across miles of ocean, I highly doubt that a wall is going to stop them.


From what I have hear that is mainly from the phillipines and not as bad as the USA.


I didn't say dump the money, invest it. Manage it.


I know, but it would still only go so far if the government is corrupt. They need to fix corruption inside their own government.

But a wall does slow them down and decrease the numbers. Not stop the all together, but slow them down and decrease the number. Companies are being attacked for hiring illegals, but its the pourus border and a crooked mexican government that makes this hard. You know how many workers mexico loses each year?
Too many workers, but the wall won't really slow them down all that much. We've built walls before, and they've either gone on, over, around, or through them. We can't build a wall in the ocean after all, we can't build it down to the center of the earth, and we can't cover the country with a dome (Think of the A/C costs if nothing else). And, given that half are overstayers anyway...

From what I have hear that is mainly from the phillipines and not as bad as the USA.
Not as bad no (This is of course due to a number of issues that Japan has that the US doesn't have), but the point remains, they're still coming. That's why I have very little faith in a wall.

I know, but it would still only go so far if the government is corrupt. They need to fix corruption inside their own government.
It's a start though, and it might go a long way to getting reform down South started. Besides, if the US controls the purse strings...

A wall would slow down immigration if it was done right.

First, it would have to be at least relatively difficult to get past it. Make it really tall or a double fence or something.

Second, you would need GUARDS or CAMERAS. The people who see a wall in the middle of the desert with no one watching it are idiots. An effective wall would need guards to actually physically stop the people. (:sniper: ) hehe, not necessarily.

Also, it would obviously stem the flow, not completely stop it. That will never happen, with anything. Just because you can't stop crime, does that mean we should not have any police or laws?

Thats alot of Asian people. I much rather go to New York. If NY doesn't have it, it may not exist.


To prevent a threadjack, answer Earabia.

I did answer the question, he just didnt like the answer, which was about the same as him saying his wife.

Because unlike you I actually answer the bloody question with details.

Yes i did. You just didnt like the answer.


You really have no notion of what the system is currently checking or the burdens placed upon those who want to immigrate do you?

Neither do you. You keep boasting how the price is too high and how there is restrictions and such, but you havent given any details yourself. I have read this thread, see i at least read other peoples posts and answer them detailed, you havent. Or at least when a question comes up you dont like.

Again, how is someone making $20 a day supposed to afford the fees? I make good money here in Japan, I also have a very understanding boss who is more than happy to let me have time off to get to the US Embassy with my wife to help her immigrate. We are very lucky in that regards (We also don't have to wait for a visa number), but many people who want to immigrate, people with no criminal record, who want to come in to work hard and support their family, are unable to do so because they don't have such nice jobs that pay such good money.

Thats not my problem. That is for them to figure out, not my responsiblity to make sure they have a nice and easy pass in this country when people int his country already have their own personal problems. Like i said, how do you propose to pay for those same border patrols with dropping the rate that have to get in this nation?


:rolleyes: Did you even bother to read the thread BEFORE you started, because I've already posted what I think should happen.

Its you not listening to what i say and when, not me. You need to learn how to read yourself. Besides how can one catch anything you say when all you have done is attack other posters in here by stating you dont know this or that, but never give any details...

Just because it is tough to get in, doesnt mean they can break the law, its no excuse.

First thing's first - to stem the tide of illegal immigration, a massive, 150-foot, multi-layered wall with checkpoints is put along the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Every mile of it. Reinforced with steel and watched by snipers so that anyone who tries to cross the border without clearance is shot on sight. No questions asked. Oh yeah - and we'd just be shooting them with tranquilizer darts and dragging them in to interrogate them. Anyone who's trying to cross illegally goes back home and is tagged as a border-crosser. They do it again, we drop them in the middle of Mexico somewhere so they're not near the border. They do it after that - instant death.

Anyone who's a current illegal immigrant has 60 days to become a citizen. The process is streamlined so that it can be done fairly easily. Anyone who doesn't get that done in 60 days gets deported. Anyone who tries to cross again - instant death. Lather, rinse, repeat for all those who just overstay their visas.

Also, a new law that says that children who are born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents are not citizens. They may not run for President someday and they are not eligible for state-run health care. Plain and simple. At least one parent has to be a citizen.

And while we're at it, any employer who hires an illegal immigrant is fined, per instance, $250,000 plus whatever they saved from hiring an illegal over a citizen, PLUS they pay for any violation of minimum wage and child labor laws. There's no point in having laws against illegal immigration if we don't enforce rules and make it so that people don't want to hire illegals. Oh yeah - and companies are put on a rolling point scale for massive offenses. If a company has too many points, the government shuts them down and the executives, as well as whoever's responsible for hiring, all go to jail for 10 years. Minimum. And I don't mean minimum security.

Might as well get tough; that's the only way that people who don't play by the rules will listen.

Should it surprise me to see how many people would not only not oppose the rise of fascism in the US, but would cheer and laud it?

Should it surprise me to see how many people would not only not oppose the rise of fascism in the US, but would cheer and laud it?

Nope!

Should it surprise me to see how many people would not only not oppose the rise of fascism in the US, but would cheer and laud it?

So if you favor getting tough on illegal immigration, you love fascism...hmm, nice-looking straw man you have constructed there. Fascism is the absence of the rule of law and the enforcement of the rule of power. The rule of law must be protected, and those who do not play by the rules are the ones who should pay. Those who want to play by the rules? No penalty for them. But I am sick to death of hearing about all these damn illegal immigrants who won't play by the rules.

So if you favor getting tough on illegal immigration, you love fascism...hmm, nice-looking straw man you have constructed there. Fascism is the absence of the rule of law and the enforcement of the rule of power. The rule of law must be protected, and those who do not play by the rules are the ones who should pay. Those who want to play by the rules? No penalty for them. But I am sick to death of hearing about all these damn illegal immigrants who won't play by the rules.


Nope not qite right though huh!

Fascism is despotict rule accompanyied with radical nationalism and inherent racism.

Nope not qite right though huh!

Fascism is despotict rule accompanyied with radical nationalism and inherent racism.

And is also defined by an absence of any real democracy. And is also defined by the law being at the whim of the leadership. Therefore, fascism is without rule of law. It may not be the main characteristic, but it is one of them.

So if you favor getting tough on illegal immigration, you love fascism... hmm, nice-looking straw man you have constructed there. Fascism is the absence of the rule of law and the enforcement of the rule of power.

Fascism preys on nationalistic fears of the foreigner.

It holds national defense as one of its highest tenets, going to draconian measures to achieve perceived success. You know "The Garrison State."

It is not unreasonable to assume someone who supports ludicrous giant walls, armed conflict with immigrants, "no questions asked," torture and "instant death" - a la:

a massive, 150-foot, multi-layered wall with checkpoints is put along the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Every mile of it. Reinforced with steel and watched by snipers so that anyone who tries to cross the border without clearance is shot on sight. No questions asked. Oh yeah - and we'd just be shooting them with tranquilizer darts and dragging them in to interrogate them. Anyone who's trying to cross illegally goes back home and is tagged as a border-crosser. They do it again, we drop them in the middle of Mexico somewhere so they're not near the border. They do it after that - instant death.


Is also likely to support *other* elements of fascism.

Nor is it a straw man.


But I am sick to death of hearing about all these damn illegal immigrants who won't play by the rules.

Fuck the rules. I don't play by them either. You know, I just commited a crime yesterday. Going to whine about it? Going to try to have me kicked out of the country?

The American spirit used to be one of competition and hard work. Now it's just "waaah, the illegals are taking my job" or "wah, the liberals are outsourcing my job" or just "wah."

And is also defined by an absence of any real democracy. And is also defined by the law being at the whim of the leadership. Therefore, fascism is without rule of law. It may not be the main characteristic, but it is one of them.

Hence the not quite right. The important bit for this discussion though is the radical nationlism, and rasicm.

When we blame the immigrants for our misfourtune, it is no wonder people level the charge fascist is it? You can surly see that?

Hence the not quite right. The important bit for this discussion though is the radical nationlism, and rasicm.

When we blame the immigrants for our misfourtune, it is no wonder people level the charge fascist is it? You can surly see that?

It is scapegoating, sure, though it is not necessarily racist scapegoating unless we turn it against all immigrants. If people specify that the problem rests only with illegal immigrants, then that is not inherently racist. For that matter, a statement that immigrants in general are the problem is more nationalist than racist (and nationalism was probably more important to fascism than racism could ever be...I don't recall Mussolini's Italy being particularly racist, but it sure as hell was nationalist.)

If we say, "Those damn illegals are zapping away our tax money," it's a statement that goes against those who break the law and get away with it. If we say, "Those damn immigrants are taking our jobs," then that's a nationalist statement. If we say, "Those damn Mexicans are what's wrong with this country," that's absolutely racist. I would imagine that people would make any of those claims, but to counter the first statement with "You're a fascist!" is a bit overreactive.

I would imagine that people would make any of those claims, but to counter the first statement with "You're a fascist!" is a bit overreactive.


You may well be correct, but that is not what I said. I just point out that your strawman statement is not correct.

Overreaction or not, there is some substance to the charge, and so strawman it is not.

And is also defined by an absence of any real democracy. And is also defined by the law being at the whim of the leadership. Therefore, fascism is without rule of law. It may not be the main characteristic, but it is one of them.

No. You presuppose that law not passed and empowered in a democratic context is not law, which is, in the first case, wrong. Equally, what is democracy but "rule of power" (ugly term if I may be so rude as to say)? Surely, given that it empowers the "people", and democracy is very literally " the rule of the people, it is a "rule of power", which, as I think upon it, is a tautology in any case.

No. You presuppose that law not passed and empowered in a democratic context is not law, which is, in the first case, wrong. Equally, what is democracy but "rule of power" (ugly term if I may be so rude as to say)? Surely, given that it empowers the "people", and democracy is very literally " the rule of the people, it is a "rule of power", which, as I think upon it, is a tautology in any case.

In a system set up with procedures and structure, such as a democracy as we know it, people have to go through the appropriate channels and make sure something OK before they can do it, and if the law is broken, the appropriate legal channels take care of it. If something a problem, a law is passed against it, and it is enforced once it's on the books. With a fascist system, what's to say that the leaders don't just decide that people with red hair named Reggie are not a problem and have them executed without a trial? In a system with the rule of law in place, there would have to be a law passed stating that red-haired people named Reggie are to be executed. They can't just go and do it and avoid legal channels. Well, they can, but there's repercussions for it. In a fascist system, there is likely not to be repercussions.

In a system set up with procedures and structure, such as a democracy as we know it, people have to go through the appropriate channels and make sure something OK before they can do it, and if the law is broken, the appropriate legal channels take care of it. If something a problem, a law is passed against it, and it is enforced once it's on the books. With a fascist system, what's to say that the leaders don't just decide that people with red hair named Reggie are not a problem and have them executed without a trial? In a system with the rule of law in place, there would have to be a law passed stating that red-haired people named Reggie are to be executed. They can't just go and do it and avoid legal channels. Well, they can, but there's repercussions for it. In a fascist system, there is likely not to be repercussions.

Heh wrong again. Fascist system can't last without the will of the people, in fact no govement can, the repercussion in every case is revalution!

Fuck the rules. I don't play by them either. You know, I just commited a crime yesterday. Going to whine about it? Going to try to have me kicked out of the country?

The American spirit used to be one of competition and hard work. Now it's just "waaah, the illegals are taking my job" or "wah, the liberals are outsourcing my job" or just "wah."somehow GT... you say this now, but I'll bet if you were Robbed, Raped and then beat to an inch of your life, you would be screaming for people to obey those "rules".

or are you only concered with following those "rules" that don't inconvience you personally.

somehow GT... you say this now, but I'll bet if you were Robbed, Raped and then beat to an inch of your life, you would be screaming for people to obey those "rules".

or are you only concered with following those "rules" that don't inconvience you personally.

Nice try...is jaywalking equal to rape?

Not all rules are worthy of respect.

Not 'following the rules' as some sort of blanket statement supporting the idea that people should be kicked out of a country is absurd. GT's point highlighted that absurdity.

It's way more fun to pretend that he was talking about scrapping ALL the rules though, isn't it.

somehow GT... you say this now, but I'll bet if you were Robbed, Raped and then beat to an inch of your life, you would be screaming for people to obey those "rules".

Oddly enough, I don't need to be beaten, robbed and raped in order to believe that assault, theft and rape should be illegal.

Other than the fantasy of me getting beaten, robbed and raped, how is this relevant to illegal immigration?

Oddly enough, I don't need to be beaten, robbed and raped in order to believe that assault, theft and rape should be illegal.

Other than the fantasy of me getting beaten, robbed and raped, how is this relevant to illegal immigration?

It's obvious. If you are against assault, robbery and rape, you must be against 'illegal' immigration. And if you support 'illegal' immigration, you are FOR assault, robbery and rape.

Quite clear.

It's obvious. If you are against assault, robbery and rape, you must be against 'illegal' immigration. And if you support 'illegal' immigration, you are FOR assault, robbery and rape.

Quite clear.

Bwahahahaahaha nooo that is not very clear at all, please elaberate?

Bwahahahaahaha nooo that is not very clear at all, please elaberate?
Gladly :D

Well, you state your position. I'll then demonise it by inferring from that position that you support something truly horrible, and use that to dismiss your position.

Like this. Oh, you like vanilla icecream better than chocolate? YOU FUCKING RACIST! Clearly your preference is based on bigotry, so anyone who like vanilla must be a bastard racist like you. I win!

Gladly :D

Well, you state your position. I'll then demonise it by inferring from that position that you support something truly horrible, and use that to dismiss your position.

Like this. Oh, you like vanilla icecream better than chocolate? YOU FUCKING RACIST! Clearly your preference is based on bigotry, so anyone who like vanilla must be a bastard racist like you. I win!

Ohhh so youmean you have not thought it through? You are just trotting outt what you learnt on you papas kness?

What are you talking about?

Nice try...is jaywalking equal to rape?

Not all rules are worthy of respect.

Not 'following the rules' as some sort of blanket statement supporting the idea that people should be kicked out of a country is absurd. GT's point highlighted that absurdity.

It's way more fun to pretend that he was talking about scrapping ALL the rules though, isn't it.as I said, you put a blanket coverage on RULES. Tresspass is illegal. I'ld bet you would support should it happen against you, but if it becomes inconvient to you, then it doesn't exist or shouldn't exist.

Jaywalking is illegal for a reason. you may not agree with that reasoning, and if you don't then fight to get those laws revoked, not just break them. work with the system, not against it.

and yes, you will be fined in Hawaii for jaywalking. they are cracking down on that.

Oddly enough, I don't need to be beaten, robbed and raped in order to believe that assault, theft and rape should be illegal.

Other than the fantasy of me getting beaten, robbed and raped, how is this relevant to illegal immigration?thanks for answering your own question.

Ohhh so youmean you have not thought it through? You are just trotting outt what you learnt on you papas kness?

What are you talking about?

Have you suffered from a head injury today?

Illegal immigration is illegal for a reason. That's why we have border patrols up north in Canada, though we have no reason to fear the "frostbacks" are illegally immigrating into our country and filling job positions that the average American isn't willing to take.

I'm honestly against illegal immigration - it makes tracking working civilians in border regions hard and it makes legal enforcement harder. My solution would be to offer a sort of amnesty to those already in the country to work with a green card status, then allow more access to green cards for Mexican civilians willing to come to America (expanding job markets = need for an inexperienced but plentiful workforce) while strengthening our border control policies and cracking down on illegal immigration.

I honestly heard a report on World News Tonight about how we "have a problem with illegal immigration," then two nights later, they aired a segment about how there are families being left behind because illegal immigrants are being deported.... :rolleyes:

as I said, you put a blanket coverage on RULES. Tresspass is illegal. I'ld bet you would support should it happen against you, but if it becomes inconvient to you, then it doesn't exist or shouldn't exist.

Jaywalking is illegal for a reason. you may not agree with that reasoning, and if you don't then fight to get those laws revoked, not just break them. work with the system, not against it.

and yes, you will be fined in Hawaii for jaywalking. they are cracking down on that.

thanks for answering your own question.Ah, so you believe that the fact that a law exists is enough to give it legitimacy.

So you would support the legal opening of borders, and the blanket legalisation of any and all immigration, without restriction?

Law = good, illegal = bad.

So you're affirming my characterisation of your position. To be in support of 'illegal' immigration (by believing it should be legal) is to be in support of rape.

Rather absurd.

You support jaywalking because it's legal. Abortion is legal. Therefore you support abortion.

Ah, so you believe that the fact that a law exists is enough to give it legitimacy.

So you would support the legal opening of borders, and the blanket legalisation of any and all immigration, without restriction?

Law = good, illegal = bad. if the law changes, then Yes. which is why I also say change the laws within the system. not break them.

So you're affirming my characterisation of your position. To be in support of 'illegal' immigration (by believing it should be legal) is to be in support of rape.you can support the changing of the Immigration laws. (I've never been against that.) but to support those that actively break the laws. yes.

Rather absurd.just as absurd for you to decide that a law is stupid and rather than work with the system to change it, you ignore it. all you do is give fuel to those who call for tougher laws. the lawmakers hear them and comply. adding more impitus for you to ignore the laws and thus strengthening your views of lawmakers. nice.

You support jaywalking because it's legal. Abortion is legal. Therefore you support abortion.I don't support jaywalking because it's actually Illegal. Too many people getting hurt while jaywalking.

So what about you? Do you support Trespassing? Vandalism? invasion of privacy? Littering? Fraud? Speed limits?

how many laws do you disreguard and ignore without working to change them?

As a tax paying UK citizen I believe that Illegal Immigration is completely and utterly wrong. Of course it is not equal to people who commit rape and murder, the sanctions are less. Mere deportation rather than a life sentence or two..

To solve: ID cards? Perhaps a widespread use i.e checked by independent commitee when buying a house or even to access bank accounts etc.

Or even a better border control service, because to be honest HM Revenue and Customs are a bit of a joke.

I don't support jaywalking because it's actually Illegal. Too many people getting hurt while jaywalking.

So what about you? Do you support Trespassing? Vandalism? invasion of privacy? Littering? Fraud? Speed limits?

how many laws do you disreguard and ignore without working to change them?
Bitch please. I'm training to be a lawyer. I will twist and turn the law at will to get my intended results. And every twist and turn will be legal. Why? Because the law isn't nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.

Sometimes disobeying a law is the way you get it changed.

Bitch please. I'm training to be a lawyer. I will twist and turn the law at will to get my intended results. And every twist and turn will be legal. Why? Because the law isn't nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.

Sometimes disobeying a law is the way you get it changed.I know lawyers twist and redifine things. that's why they use Legalise. to insure the layman doesn't know what's being said.

so are you saying you support the disobediance of laws for personal reasons?

I know lawyers twist and redifine things. that's why they use Legalise. to insure the layman doesn't know what's being said. The layman doesn't know what's being said because he lacks training. No matter how plain the language used, that isn't going to change. Plain language doesn't ensure you'll be able to grasp the principles of electrical engineering without further study either.

so are you saying you support the disobediance of laws for personal reasons?
I support the disobedience of certain laws for legal reasons. For example, were a municipality to pass a law declaring the use of English on signs to be illegal, that law is unconstitutional per se. But it isn't going to be struck down until someone actually 'breaks' it...unless the courts grant leave to review the legislation (which generally takes a lot more time than addressing it via a trial and/or appeal).

Disobeying laws can serve a very important legal function.

and yes, you will be fined in Hawaii for jaywalking. they are cracking down on that.

they should probably finish building sidewalks first

The layman doesn't know what's being said because he lacks training. No matter how plain the language used, that isn't going to change. Plain language doesn't ensure you'll be able to grasp the principles of electrical engineering without further study either.and you need training to understand english? of course not, which is why lawyers and Lawmakers need to use Legalise so that they can twist and redifine things to suite their clients. :p

I support the disobedience of certain laws for legal reasons. For example, were a municipality to pass a law declaring the use of English on signs to be illegal, that law is unconstitutional per se. But it isn't going to be struck down until someone actually 'breaks' it...unless the courts grant leave to review the legislation (which generally takes a lot more time than addressing it via a trial and/or appeal).really, and here I thought the way to change such a law without breaking it would be to do any combination or all of the following...
1) Gather support against the law (Pettitions)
2) pester your local lawmakers to strike it down
3) garner a vote of "no Confidence" and change the lawmakers
4) Garner support for that review
5) sick the media on 'em

all which are done without anyone "breaking the law."

how long as Illegal Immigrants been crossing over? has the law changed to address the real problem? yep... a really great way to change those laws...

Disobeying laws can serve a very important legal function.yes, keeping lawyers and law enforcement personnell employed. ;)

they should probably finish building sidewalks first

sidewalks are not the problem... the lack of crosswalks are.

that and the fact that everyone in Hawaii thinks they're from Krypton. I swear, people here cross without even looking to see if cars are coming. :rolleyes:

and you need training to understand english? of course not, which is why lawyers and Lawmakers need to use Legalise so that they can twist and redifine things to suite their clients. :p Sorry...is electrical engineering taught/practiced in gibberish? Understanding a language doesn't mean you automatically understand the concepts. My English is great. That doesn't mean I have an inherent understanding of curling. I'd have to study and/or practice to gain that understanding, my fluency in English notwithstanding.

really, and here I thought the way to change such a law without breaking it would be to do any combination or all of the following...
1) Gather support against the law (Pettitions)
2) pester your local lawmakers to strike it down
3) garner a vote of "no Confidence" and change the lawmakers
4) Garner support for that review
5) sick the media on 'em
Yeah, well you missed:
6) take the fuckers to court.

You miss the point that the only reason a law is ever struck down by the courts is because it is illegal. An illegal law. A contradiction that needs to be expunged.

Do you support illegal laws? I don't.



all which are done without anyone "breaking the law." Actually, the legislators passing the law are breaking the law by creating a law that is unconstitutional (in the scenario given). Striking the law down as invalid recognises that.

how long as Illegal Immigrants been crossing over? has the law changed to address the real problem? yep... a really great way to change those laws...

yes, keeping lawyers and law enforcement personnell employed. ;)
Actually yes, the laws have changed over time, of necessity. Regulations in terms of immigration ebb and flow, and shift according to policy decisions and real life situations. 'Illegal' immigrants are not supposed to have access to services meant for legal residents/citizens...and yet their children attend schools, play in parks, and get their streets cleared when it snows.

Why? Sometimes the changes are voluntary. Sometimes they are forced. I have the happy position of trying to force issues through the courts.

sidewalks are not the problem... the lack of crosswalks are.

well, there's no need for a crosswalk where there is no sidewalk, obviously. man, walking around up in manoa and the like was sometimes just dangerous.

that and the fact that everyone in Hawaii thinks they're from Krypton. I swear, people here cross without even looking to see if cars are coming. :rolleyes:

the best i saw was a guy on a bike just dart out in front of the bus. the driver turned to us and said "stupid haole", which was...interesting. i couldn't tell if we were being included there or not.

Sorry...is electrical engineering taught/practiced in gibberish? Understanding a language doesn't mean you automatically understand the concepts. My English is great. That doesn't mean I have an inherent understanding of curling. I'd have to study and/or practice to gain that understanding, my fluency in English notwithstanding.but I'll bet you can understand an electrical Engineering book more than a legal document. I bet you can learn Curling by reading books. but look at how the laws are written...

Yeah, well you missed:
6) take the fuckers to court.another way without breaking the law.

You miss the point that the only reason a law is ever struck down by the courts is because it is illegal. An illegal law. A contradiction that needs to be expunged. and the point you missed completely is that you can get those illegal laws out without breaking them.

Do you support illegal laws? I don't.I don't, but I won't break those laws while working to get those laws changed.

Actually, the legislators passing the law are breaking the law by creating a law that is unconstitutional (in the scenario given). Striking the law down as invalid recognises that.

Actually yes, the laws have changed over time, of necessity. Regulations in terms of immigration ebb and flow, and shift according to policy decisions and real life situations. 'Illegal' immigrants are not supposed to have access to services meant for legal residents/citizens...and yet their children attend schools, play in parks, and get their streets cleared when it snows. so you view the main problem with immigration being their standard of living here in the USA (funny how you still have reports of illegals being paid below minimum wage and living in sub-standard living conditions. still needs work.) not the cumbersome, lengthy and costly procedures to gain access legally.

Why? Sometimes the changes are voluntary. Sometimes they are forced. I have the happy position of trying to force issues through the courts.which doesn't mean the law has to be broken to do so.

infact, you have yet to show how breaking the law is the best way to change the law.

well, there's no need for a crosswalk where there is no sidewalk, obviously. man, walking around up in manoa and the like was sometimes just dangerous.not just Manoa. but the main problem in Manoa is that their roads are just TOO narrow.

the best i saw was a guy on a bike just dart out in front of the bus. the driver turned to us and said "stupid haole", which was...interesting. i couldn't tell if we were being included there or not.you were on the Bus. so no, you were not a "stupid haole." :D

you were on the Bus. so no, you were not a "stupid haole." :D

ah, excellent. that was actually one of my worries when i was supposed to move out there - even if i couldn't be local, i didn't want to forever be automatically considered a ignorant, invasive foreigner

ah, excellent. that was actually one of my worries when i was supposed to move out there - even if i couldn't be local, i didn't want to forever be automatically considered a ignorant, invasive foreigner

Ah... that's the thing. spend a year living there, get fluent in Pidgin English (I'll send you the local dictionary if you do decided to move here,) get comfortable in slippers (flip-flops to you,) and you lose the title of Haole so fast you'll be the only one calling yourself "Haole." ;)

tear down the borders, thatll solve our problem

tear down the borders, thatll solve our problem

**please don't be flamebait, please don't be flamebait...!**

Their is a simple reality tha must be taken into account when dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico into the USA, and that is the fact that the current economic structure apparently relies on a work force that receives no benefits and works for $3.15 an hour.

I would wager that this labour force is so important that many rich people have a vested interest in lobbying for harsher laws targetting illegal immigrants while restricting or limiting any attempts to strengthen the border.

I would suggest a multi-tiered immigration system. The USA would accept any immigrant without a violent criminal record and let them in. This unskilled labour force would have a substantially lower minimum wage than US citizens, and would not receive any pension, but would receive medicare, or whatever the US calls its public health care system. They would receive the same legal protections as US citizens, but would not be allowed to vote. After ten years, they are granted citizenship if they have not commited a felony.

This would be coupled with a general amnesty exactly like the last one.

The existing system could also stay in place, so that people who wanted to emigrate to the USA, and earn a decent wage, could do so.

The capitalists will be able to get their cheap labour force. The Latin Americans will get to make more money than they would at home. Since everyone's legal, it makes it easier to keep track of people, and immigrants have legal recourse if they are abused in any way.

Now there's no need to beef up your border, as all the latinos come up to the US Border guys and sign up themselves for the Gift-of-God guest worker program.

Anything I haven't thought of?

Hahahaha, problem with your idea Gift-of-God, is the honesty. See, exploiting people like this, deliberately paying them less, giving them less 'benefits'...doing this openly? No no no! It's much better to do it sneakily, because then you can deny you have anything to do with it. You don't have to take responsibility. People can make claims, and accuse you, but they don't really have a leg to stand on. Make it above board, and you open yourself up to much stronger attack.

**please don't be flamebait, please don't be flamebait...!**
*Hides Marshmellos*

>.>

<.<

what...

My solution is to let the market decide. A free society means allowing employers to hire whoever they want. It also means not restricting people's movement.

If someone from Mexico wants to work in the US and someone wants to hire that person, it's none of the government's damn business.

My solution is that we, by the wonders of our industry, overheat the world, melting the polar ice caps, and leaving only one small landmass in the Himalayas above water. If there is but one landmass, there can be no migration, legal or illegal. Figures drop to zero. Winner.

Fuck the rules. I don't play by them either. You know, I just commited a crime yesterday. Going to whine about it? Going to try to have me kicked out of the country?

The American spirit used to be one of competition and hard work. Now it's just "waaah, the illegals are taking my job" or "wah, the liberals are outsourcing my job" or just "wah."



:rolleyes:


Just in case you didn't notice, Liberals are the ones bitching about job outsourcing. But your comment didn't really help you in anyway shape or form. Rules are there for a reason, if you don't want to play by them, then go to jail; no skin off my nose.

My solution is to let the market decide. A free society means allowing employers to hire whoever they want. It also means not restricting people's movement.

If someone from Mexico wants to work in the US and someone wants to hire that person, it's none of the government's damn business.

laissez-faire is so last century...

:)

Just in case you didn't notice, Liberals are the ones bitching about job outsourcing.

Ask me if I care.

But your comment didn't really help you in anyway shape or form.

You're right, it was just a mini-rant about the state of the American spirit. It wasn't integral to or even a part of my argument.

Rules are there for a reason, if you don't want to play by them, then go to jail; no skin off my nose.

Blah blah blah. "It's a rule, therefore it's right." Why don't you give me a new argument, like for example one that works.

Ask me if I care.


You said people were bitching about liberals outsourcing jobs, but it was Liberals bitching about it.



You're right, it was just a mini-rant about the state of the American spirit. It wasn't integral to or even a part of my argument.


Then make one.



Blah blah blah. "It's a rule, therefore it's right." Why don't you give me a new argument, like for example one that works.



It did work, if the rule works obey it, if it's wrong challenge it. Don't assume they all suck.

My solution is that we, by the wonders of our industry, overheat the world, melting the polar ice caps, and leaving only one small landmass in the Himalayas above water. If there is but one landmass, there can be no migration, legal or illegal. Figures drop to zero. Winner.

Brilliant! :)

My solution is that we, by the wonders of our industry, overheat the world, melting the polar ice caps, and leaving only one small landmass in the Himalayas above water. If there is but one landmass, there can be no migration, legal or illegal. Figures drop to zero. Winner.

... except that would turn Kevin Costner into a religious figure...

You said people were bitching about liberals outsourcing jobs, but it was Liberals bitching about it.

I didn't even mention "liberals." So please go play your little Us vs Them game with someone who cares. I'm not interested in whether the "left" or the "right" started it, or which side has the bigger penis.

Then make one.

Gee, I thought I've made several in this thread. Guess I was wron- wait, no, it's just that you haven't been reading.

It did work, if the rule works obey it, if it's wrong challenge it. Don't assume they all suck.

I didn't assume "they all suck," and your argument - if that's what it was - didn't "work" at doing anything. Was it meant to be in support of draconian anti-immigration laws? Didn't really convince me if so. Was it meant to be in support of the moral righteousness of any and all laws? Didn't do much for me there either. You'll have to be more substantial if you want me to consider it an argument, though you can certainly pat yourself on the back regardless if that makes you feel better.

Then annex Mexico

Best suggestion yet! :D

My solution is to let the market decide. A free society means allowing employers to hire whoever they want. It also means not restricting people's movement.

If someone from Mexico wants to work in the US and someone wants to hire that person, it's none of the government's damn business.

Actually it is teh governments business when a immigrant ILLEGAL comes over the border. Sorry being illegal is WRONG.

Sorry being illegal is WRONG.

what, by definition?

what, by definition?

Yes in this nations laws of entering this land. If there was no law that you ahd to sign up to be a citizen and apply for it, then iit wouldnt be illegal would it? Thing is we have the laws there(and in my opinion a good thing too)for good reasons. Our nation maybe many things like pretty darn wealthy, but if we let unfettered immigration, will we be that after so many years? Didnt think so....

Yes in this nations laws of entering this land. If there was no law that you ahd to sign up to be a citizen and apply for it, then iit wouldnt be illegal would it? Thing is we have the laws there(and in my opinion a good thing too)for good reasons. Our nation maybe many things like pretty darn wealthy, but if we let unfettered immigration, will we be that after so many years? Didnt think so....

What makes you think not?

Actually it is teh governments business when a immigrant ILLEGAL comes over the border. Sorry being illegal is WRONG.

It's always amazed me how people see illegal immigrants as not people who have committed a crime, but people who are "being illegal" or who "are illegal." It implies, of course, that their LIFE is the crime.

And your silly argument that "illegal = wrong" is so silly I don't even have to address the fact that you've done many illegal things in your life and you probably don't consider yourself a "wrong" person.

Criminalizing people is the last resort of a peoples with failed policies. If 20% of the humans on this planet didn't systematically exploit the living fuck out of the remaining 80%, emigration wouldn't be a problem. From any sane perspective, immigration is merely levelling the playing field.

So quit blaming immigrants for immigration problems, you hypocritical cunts.

Now my solution is, as already mentioned, to arm them. Armed immigration is how societies, hell, entire continents, have been lost in the past, and from the looks of this senseless thread, that's exactly what we're discussing.

You can discuss ways to counteract emigration from now 'til hell freezes over, but your moral justifications are shit, and they'll always be shit. You're discussing methods of limiting people's freedom of movement for the sake of exploiting them.

"But unregulated immigration will destroy our society" Possibly, but then at least own up to the fact that we are the assholes. All this apologetic justification bollocks is making me sick. It's like watching a couple of paedos blame eachother for the death of the toddler they both raped.

People talk as if this illegal immigration problem is a new concept and that it was a slight nuisance, then the Mexicans told their other Mexican friends and those guys came over and perpetuated the cycle.

Yes, it is a problem when people come in illegally, but this is old news really. Sure it's been happening, or at least reported for about a couple of years or so running, but it's, lets face fact, old, old news! It's from the 50s!

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html)

Eisenhower dealt with the problem in his own way; a style that was hip in the 50s, when people didn't care about political correctness, and PC could go take flying leap off the Sears Tower.

Yes, shipping the illegal immigrants 500 miles into Mexico may seem extreme, but it worked at the time.

Maybe what the system needs is something like that, but not as extreme; something that reflects the current way of thinking.

Issue a draft, but not a conventional one. Issue it to the illegal immigrants. When they are found and tracked down, give them the notice and 15 days to reply to it. If they fail to, the whole family is escorted 500 miles into Mexico.

Only one member per family would be required to serve, and the draft notice would have them serving 2 years. The other members would be required to take a citizenship class, unless they are attending school.

When the draft notice is accepted, the family would be made into permanent residents until the person serving either: served the full two years, was killed in action, or was honourably discharged.

Then providing that all the above were met, the family would be granted citizenship after taking the loyalty oath, and past a background check, which would be done when the draft notice is accepted.

EDIT - I realise that this embraces a couple of previously suggested ideas. I just wanted to use them with my own.

Am I like a curse or something? I swear, unless I'm starting a thread about cats, any thread I post in that's serious, seems to inherently die; it's like I've got the Midas touch, but instead of turning everything to gold, it makes everything an oozing mound of mouldy bacteria...

It's like watching a couple of paedos blame eachother for the death of the toddler they both raped.

Simile of the Week.

Criminalizing people is the last resort of a peoples with failed policies. If 20% of the humans on this planet didn't systematically exploit the living fuck out of the remaining 80%, emigration wouldn't be a problem. From any sane perspective, immigration is merely levelling the playing field.

So quit blaming immigrants for immigration problems, you hypocritical cunts.

Now my solution is, as already mentioned, to arm them. Armed immigration is how societies, hell, entire continents, have been lost in the past, and from the looks of this senseless thread, that's exactly what we're discussing.

You can discuss ways to counteract emigration from now 'til hell freezes over, but your moral justifications are shit, and they'll always be shit. You're discussing methods of limiting people's freedom of movement for the sake of exploiting them.

"But unregulated immigration will destroy our society" Possibly, but then at least own up to the fact that we are the assholes. All this apologetic justification bollocks is making me sick. It's like watching a couple of paedos blame eachother for the death of the toddler they both raped.


You win the award for the stupidest argument against something of the month! Great job, you made no sense what so ever!

People talk as if this illegal immigration problem is a new concept and that it was a slight nuisance, then the Mexicans told their other Mexican friends and those guys came over and perpetuated the cycle.

Yes, it is a problem when people come in illegally, but this is old news really. Sure it's been happening, or at least reported for about a couple of years or so running, but it's, lets face fact, old, old news! It's from the 50s!

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html)

Eisenhower dealt with the problem in his own way; a style that was hip in the 50s, when people didn't care about political correctness, and PC could go take flying leap off the Sears Tower.

Yes, shipping the illegal immigrants 500 miles into Mexico may seem extreme, but it worked at the time.

Maybe what the system needs is something like that, but not as extreme; something that reflects the current way of thinking.

Issue a draft, but not a conventional one. Issue it to the illegal immigrants. When they are found and tracked down, give them the notice and 15 days to reply to it. If they fail to, the whole family is escorted 500 miles into Mexico.

Only one member per family would be required to serve, and the draft notice would have them serving 2 years. The other members would be required to take a citizenship class, unless they are attending school.

When the draft notice is accepted, the family would be made into permanent residents until the person serving either: served the full two years, was killed in action, or was honourably discharged.

Then providing that all the above were met, the family would be granted citizenship after taking the loyalty oath, and past a background check, which would be done when the draft notice is accepted.

EDIT - I realise that this embraces a couple of previously suggested ideas. I just wanted to use them with my own.
but that doesn't stop them from coming across. hitting the companies/businesses/people who hire them and making the punishment severe enough to make it years to recover would deter the hiring of illegals.

You win the award for the stupidest argument against something of the month! Great job, you made no sense what so ever!

which words confused you, we can go over them again

Yes in this nations laws of entering this land. If there was no law that you ahd to sign up to be a citizen and apply for it, then iit wouldnt be illegal would it? Thing is we have the laws there(and in my opinion a good thing too)for good reasons. Our nation maybe many things like pretty darn wealthy, but if we let unfettered immigration, will we be that after so many years? Didnt think so....

what?

how does this reply to the previous chain of statements?

Sorry being illegal is WRONG.what, by definition?

which words confused you, we can go over them againSomehow I doubt it'd help.

but that doesn't stop them from coming across. hitting the companies/businesses/people who hire them and making the punishment severe enough to make it years to recover would deter the hiring of illegals.

It would also cause severe damage to the economy. The reason why illegal immigration is not strictly enforced is the quiet little truth most people do not want to acknowledge: illegal labor is necessary for the economy to function.

We have a massive labor shortage in many industries in the US. Most significantly in agriculture and construction, but just about any labor intensive industry relies on illegal labor to make up for the shortage of workers.

Everything from landscaping to food service would face severe labor shortages. Despite what some lazy people want you to think, it is not really hard for an American to find a job. If you think it is, just come to Maryland and I will point out a few dozen jobs help wanted signs in my neighborhood - not to mention the ads in the paper. Oh yeah... I forgot... no self-respecting american should have to lower himself to take a job paying less than 6 digits a year.

The reason why illegal immigration is not strictly enforced is the quiet little truth most people do not want to acknowledge: illegal labor is necessary for the economy to function.

no it isn't. labor is needed. the illegality is for the benefit of rich assholes who want to better exploit people.

It would also cause severe damage to the economy. The reason why illegal immigration is not strictly enforced is the quiet little truth most people do not want to acknowledge: illegal labor is necessary for the economy to function.no it isn't and no it won't. the fact that things degraded to the point where such an image can be conjured up is the same as saying it's too late. we are so dependant on fossil fuels that to introduce any alternative source would cause economic collapse.

We have a massive labor shortage in many industries in the US. Most significantly in agriculture and construction, but just about any labor intensive industry relies on illegal labor to make up for the shortage of workers.again, no it won't. such labor shortages would be filled by legal Migrant workers.

Everything from landscaping to food service would face severe labor shortages. Despite what some lazy people want you to think, it is not really hard for an American to find a job. If you think it is, just come to Maryland and I will point out a few dozen jobs help wanted signs in my neighborhood - not to mention the ads in the paper. Oh yeah... I forgot... no self-respecting american should have to lower himself to take a job paying less than 6 digits a year.I work for less than 6 digits a year. many here in Hawaii would love to have a job that could pull them out from living in tents on the beaches.

the problem is, that by hiring a Migrant worker, the employer has to pay federal and state taxes, pay benefits and pay a certain wage. Illegal immigrants don't need that since most are paid in cash. thus Cost Effective wise, it's better to hire an Illegal Imigrant than a legal imigrant/citizen.

any buisiness that gets shut down because of a lack of Illegal Immigrants to occupy their job posistions is a business that does deserve to die. the same as any business that can't survive the changes in any business climate.

a collapse? hardly. a stumble maybe, but not a collapse.

but that doesn't stop them from coming across. hitting the companies/businesses/people who hire them and making the punishment severe enough to make it years to recover would deter the hiring of illegals.
You want to punish companies that otherwise contribute to the economy, that's your choice.

Yes, these people have come to America illegally, but, consider this; they have come to America because they see it as a great land of chance, but the bureaucratic red tape makes it difficult.

They earn less money in Mexico; they see America as a place where they can work and earn money. Even if part of it is sent back home, they still pump money back into the economy because they have to pay rent and basic costs, as well as buy basic necessities like food and hygiene products.

Back to the companies themselves; you could punish them with monetary penalties, but when it gets to be too much, they will pack up and operate out of other nations.

They already outsource to other nations because it's cheaper, don't give them more reasons to totally shut down business operations.

If you really want to curb illegal immigration, send a strong message to the people who are coming that they have two choices: military service or being sent back home.

Incentives could also be given to companies to hire citizens and pay good wages.

You want to punish companies that otherwise contribute to the economy, that's your choice.

Yes, these people have come to America illegally, but, consider this; they have come to America because they see it as a great land of chance, but the bureaucratic red tape makes it difficult.

They earn less money in Mexico; they see America as a place where they can work and earn money. Even if part of it is sent back home, they still pump money back into the economy because they have to pay rent and basic costs, as well as buy basic necessities like food and hygiene products.

Back to the companies themselves; you could punish them with monetary penalties, but when it gets to be too much, they will pack up and operate out of other nations.

They already outsource to other nations because it's cheaper, don't give them more reasons to totally shut down business operations.

If you really want to curb illegal immigration, send a strong message to the people who are coming that they have two choices: military service or being sent back home.

Incentives could also be given to companies to hire citizens and pay good wages.
and if you read my solution, it also called for revamping the process. yes there is red tape and yes, it is currently slow and cumbersome, but that is still no reason to support those who break it.

that mentatity is what allowed all these people in illegally in the first place.

my solution put heavy penalties on those that assist and hire illegals. and the fines and what not are then used to help fund the streamlining process.

It's always amazed me how people see illegal immigrants as not people who have committed a crime, but people who are "being illegal" or who "are illegal." It implies, of course, that their LIFE is the crime.

And your silly argument that "illegal = wrong" is so silly I don't even have to address the fact that you've done many illegal things in your life and you probably don't consider yourself a "wrong" person.

I have? Please enlighten me on what illegal activities i did in past and now. Please i beg you to show us. :) My point is IT IS wrong to break laws and then expect everyone to say: "oh its ok, they have families too." Sorry if you break the laws you get punished. Did i say their life is a crime, i said their ACTIVITIES they committed by crossing the border is a CRIME.

Criminalizing people is the last resort of a peoples with failed policies. If 20% of the humans on this planet didn't systematically exploit the living fuck out of the remaining 80%, emigration wouldn't be a problem. From any sane perspective, immigration is merely levelling the playing field.

So quit blaming immigrants for immigration problems, you hypocritical cunts.

Now my solution is, as already mentioned, to arm them. Armed immigration is how societies, hell, entire continents, have been lost in the past, and from the looks of this senseless thread, that's exactly what we're discussing.

You can discuss ways to counteract emigration from now 'til hell freezes over, but your moral justifications are shit, and they'll always be shit. You're discussing methods of limiting people's freedom of movement for the sake of exploiting them.

"But unregulated immigration will destroy our society" Possibly, but then at least own up to the fact that we are the assholes. All this apologetic justification bollocks is making me sick. It's like watching a couple of paedos blame eachother for the death of the toddler they both raped.

Nice garbage post.

what?

how does this reply to the previous chain of statements?

Dont like my honest answer? Too bad. I answered you no matter if you think i didnt or not.

By definition of this nation, we have laws that say you have to enter LEGALLY to stay here and live here. Whether this is by student(papers included), documented worker or a person with a green card awaiting his citizenship documents. What part of this dont you understand?

It's always amazed me how people see illegal immigrants as not people who have committed a crime, but people who are "being illegal" or who "are illegal." It implies, of course, that their LIFE is the crime.But saying moving is a criminal activity for some people makes so much more sense. In fact, it's not the same thing at all, is it? Not if you double-think it through anyway.

I have? Please enlighten me on what illegal activities i did in past and now. Please i beg you to show us. :)

So you are saying that you have never, at any point in your life, ever violated any law?

Good on you if so. Most US citizens cannot say the same. Except when they feel the need to lie in an illegal immigration debate.

My point is IT IS wrong to break laws

Yeah, like those wrong Jews breaking the Nuremburg laws. How vile.

Law is not morality.

Did i say their life is a crime, i said their ACTIVITIES they committed by crossing the border is a CRIME.

You said they were "being illegal" and that "being illegal" is a crime, and since law is morality in your book, "being illegal" is "wrong."

Seems like a lot of [otherwise] reasonable people have major, major psychological issues about illegal immigrants. So what's your solution to this horrific problem?

I have a problem with how awful people make "illegals" out to be. Sure the nazis might say it's "genocide against whites," but they're retarded and that's to be expected. It's surprising and dismaying to me to see immigration referred to as an "invasion" by affluent americans who have never been in a country that's being invaded. The paranoia and xenophobia is alarming.

On another forum I post at, one guy kept going on about how eager he was to shoot an illegal immigrant if he caught one on his property. About how ohnoes, all illegal immigrants:

1) Produce millions of dollars of trash
2) Slaughter livestock!
3) Rape and kill!
4) Smuggle EVIL drugs!
5) Are lazy!
6) Steal our jobs!
7) Ruin the nation!

And yet another guy, who I always used to think was reasonable, was going on about how he wanted to beat up a "fucking wetback" for hitting his car. Jesus.

Anyway, my solution is fairly simple minded: Make legal immigration easier. Remove some of those 98+ forms that one needs. Remove the fees for immigration. Stop treating immigrants (no matter where they're from) as if they're terrorists.

But I expect to hear a lot of plans about barbed wire and tanks. Let's hear em.

I only agree with one of these witch is jobs.the jobs we do have should be given to those that live here.But those forms of getting in to the country,Is the only thing keeping your ass sitting in your lawn chair instead of dodging bombs on the street.

Nice garbage post.Comming from someone with that kind of fascistoid mindset, I'll take it as a compliment.My point is IT IS wrong to break laws and then expect everyone to say: "oh its ok, they have families too." Sorry if you break the laws you get punished.So you assert, but why? Is it because anything that is law is by per definition just? Or is it because you're a sad little fascist who can't fathom that to resist is duty when injustice is law?

You're talking about certain people having their right to freedom of movement taken away, without even having a say in the matter. Hell, a great many countries has it written into their basic legal code that civil disobedience is a right when laws are unjust. And anything criminalizing immi/emigration is per fucking definition unjust.

But hey, be a good little sheep & obey dear leader.

I only agree with one of these witch is jobs.the jobs we do have should be given to those that live here.

...but they are. Illegal immigrants live here. QED.

but those forms that get you in to this country is the thing keeping your ass siting in your lawn chair instead of dodging bombs on the street.

Do you actually believe that bureacratic red-tape is all that stands between normality and "dodging bombs on the street?"

Nevermind. You're the guy that equated flag burning with child rape. I'm not gonna bother with you.

good i dont have enough red bull to listen to a lecture from a liberal.:D thx again i real can't stand one but maybe you can drive your hybrid over to burger king a preech your shit over there.

good i dont have enough red bull to listen to a lecture from a liberal.:D thx again i real can't stand one but maybe you can drive your hybrid over to burger king a preech your shit over there.

Ah, yes. I must be a "liberal." Because you're supposedly a "conservative" and anyone you disagree with must be the opposite.

Whatever. I support the free market. I'm a capitalist. Just because you hate freedom and America doesn't make me 'liberal.'

But saying moving is a criminal activity for some people makes so much more sense. In fact, it's not the same thing at all, is it? Not if you double-think it through anyway.
ah, but certain forms of moving around is a criminal activity.

I could move into the area that YOU or your Family can claim. if I do so without your permission, that is tresspassing.

I could move into your shelter/buidling/domicile that you or your family can claim. If I force my way in that is Breaking and Entering or ILLEGAL tresspass.

if I move via operating a vehicle faster than the posted speed limit, that is speeding.

if I move via operating a vehicle while impared due to drugs/alcohol, that is DUI

If I move via operating a vehicle without the proper paperwork, that's also illegal.

If I enter a solverine country/nation without their permission, I am doing so illegally.

so, what's YOUR solution to the illegal immigrant problem?I say we give Lou Dobbs a shotgun.. and leave him to patrol the baja desert. :D

http://www.americanpolitics.com/WOWloudobbs.jpg

I say we give Lou Dobbs a shotgun.. and leave him to patrol the baja desert. :D

http://www.americanpolitics.com/WOWloudobbs.jpg

...

shot or slugs...


no wait.... ROCKSALT!!!

Seems like a lot of [otherwise] reasonable people have major, major psychological issues about illegal immigrants. So what's your solution to this horrific problem?

Bring the troops home from Iraq, close the bases in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, mobilize the National Guard and Army reserves to the Mexican border. Immediately start deporting illegals on sight (report sightings to the nearest police station, military base, or immigration center). Build a barb wire fence, or concrete, if necessary, and protect it every hundred yards with a machine gun nest and anti-personnel minefields.

I'll tell you why "normal" people have a problem with illegal immigration, "Illegal".

no it isn't. labor is needed. the illegality is for the benefit of rich assholes who want to better exploit people.

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that illegal labour is needed in order to maintain the wealth of those who profit from the system.

ah, but certain forms of moving around is a criminal activity.

I could move into the area that YOU or your Family can claim. if I do so without your permission, that is tresspassing. <Snip>Because not violating usage/property rights, is the same as violating usage/property rights. Clearly.

All that shit has nothing to do with your freedom of movement. It's just so many strawmen. I'm guessing your next claim will be you failed to read my post because it didn't come with 1st through 5th grade English classes attatched?If I enter a solverine country/nation without their permission, I am doing so illegally.Because the country in question has decided to restrict your freedom of movement. You can't contest this, because the country in question's got a bigger stick to hit with than you do. In fact, it has a monopoly on violence.

All the more reason to make the fucking country illegal.

Join the terrorists today. Blow up a state. It's the humanitarian thing to do.

Dont like my honest answer? Too bad. I answered you no matter if you think i didnt or not.

your honest answer was at best poorly worded. cause it made no sense as a response.

By definition of this nation

wtf? do you know what a definition is?

Because not violating usage/property rights, is the same as violating usage/property rights. Clearly.except tresspass is still tresspass whether it be on a personal, state, or federal scale. but to you, it's only illegal if it's on a personal scale.

All that shit has nothing to do with your freedom of movement. It's just so many strawmen. I'm guessing your next claim will be you failed to read my post because it didn't come with 1st through 5th grade English classes attatched? Same type of strawman you keep making. so nice that you, the master of stawmen can reconize other's works.

Because the country in question has decided to restrict your freedom of movement. You can't contest this, because the country in question's got a bigger stick to hit with than you do. In fact, it has a monopoly on violence.nowhere did I say that one cannot contest the laws. I said one shouldn't break the laws. BIG difference between the two.

All the more reason to make the fucking country illegal.

Join the terrorists today. Blow up a state. It's the humanitarian thing to do.*Yawn* the flames from your burning strawmen are nice and toasty...

and if you read my solution, it also called for revamping the process. yes there is red tape and yes, it is currently slow and cumbersome, but that is still no reason to support those who break it.

that mentatity is what allowed all these people in illegally in the first place.

my solution put heavy penalties on those that assist and hire illegals. and the fines and what not are then used to help fund the streamlining process.

The trouble with your solution is that it is impractical. There are people right now who make an awful lot of money by hiring illegal workers. These people also have the money to hire lobbyists and politicians who keep the situation the way it is. It's like an investment, and the money they save on wages is their return on the investment.

By proposing such measures as you have described, a politician would be setting himself or herself up against these powerful and wealthy forces. Why do you think Bush has done next to nothing about illegal immigration? Because he cares about the poor Mexicans? Or does he think that his power base of Republicans would not support him if he cracked down on immigration? Obviously not. He and the rest of the US government are doing nothing because that is what they were paid to do.

Welcome to capitalism.

except tresspass is still tresspass whether it be on a personal, state, or federal scale. but to you, it's only illegal if it's on a personal scale.Yes. Because anything else is utterly meaningless. Unless you want to be accused of a double standard; that is, opening your society to some but not to others, where the criteria has nothing to do with the actual persons seeking to participate (see my second post in this thread).nowhere did I say that one cannot contest the laws.I never said you did. I said it. I also said we shouldn't let it stop us.I said one shouldn't break the laws. BIG difference between the two. I said one should break the law, as a matter of principle. Unjust laws should always be broken. The more force is applied by the monopuly, the less that monopoly is able to justify it's existence.*Yawn*Did strawmanning me wear poor JuNii out?
Don't worry about it cupcake, tomorrow's another day (see? Two people can play that game).

Yes. Because anything else is utterly meaningless. Unless you want to be accused of a double standard; that is, opening your society to some but not to others, where the criteria has nothing to do with the actual persons seeking to participate (see my second post in this thread).the persons we are "opening our society" to are the ones that went through the process. granted there are exceptions (deals made with other nations, Assylum seekers, etc...) but for the General populace, it's always been, those who go through the process are allowed in, those who arn't are (and caught) are deported.

there are times when we allow Amnesty, but to me, That is a double standard. allowing those that came illegally and evaded capture to stay. so if you don't want a double standard, then get rid of the Amnesty.

I never said you did. I said it. I also said we shouldn't let it stop us.ok, just being sure. :cool:

I said one should break the law, as a matter of principle. Unjust laws should always be broken. The more force is applied by the monopuly, the less that monopoly is able to justify it's existence.Did strawmanning me wear poor JuNii out?*sigh* wrong. there are ways to change the laws without breaking them. yes even ones YOU think are unjust. Breaking them only tells the lawmakers that those laws need to be enforced. Those fighting to change the laws have a harder fight because the lawmakers can now cite examples where people are breaking the laws. And should anything major (loss of life) happen because of someone breaking that "unjust" law, that will only add Fuel and support to those calling for stricter measures.

Don't worry about it cupcake, tomorrow's another day (see? Two people can play that game). and it's soo much fun playing with another person than playing with oneself. :p

Bring the troops home from Iraq, close the bases in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, mobilize the National Guard and Army reserves to the Mexican border. Immediately start deporting illegals on sight (report sightings to the nearest police station, military base, or immigration center). Build a barb wire fence, or concrete, if necessary, and protect it every hundred yards with a machine gun nest and anti-personnel minefields.


You left out the concentration camps. Bad fascist.


I'll tell you why "normal" people have a problem with illegal immigration, "Illegal".

Bullshit. "Normal" people do "illegal" things ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Ever speed while driving? Everyone does, depending on the road and the situation. Ever jaywalk? You know, crossing a street ILLEGALLY? Everyone does. Then there's those little crimes that no one cares about. Like assault. It's OK to get into fights and hit people, yes? Especially in school. But assault is assault is assault, is illegal, is illegal, is always illegal. And then how much of the population uses, or has ever used, an illegal drug? More than you'd probably like to admit.

The problem people have with illegal immigration is not the law. Anti-illegal-immigrants never seem to go around going "Driving too fast is ILLEGAL. Let's deport all the ILLEGAL drivers!!!!!!! WE NEED MINEFIELDS TO PROTECT US!" Know why? Because you don't give a shit about the law. You give a shit about the evil immigrants "outbreeding" natives. You give a shit about those strange languages and skin colors, in YOUR neighborhood. You give a shit because you're scared and xenophobic. And nationalistic, as evidenced by your "LOL PILLBOXES" fascist-answer.

So go on fooling yourself. I see straight through you and the other pseudo-neo-nazis who are too cowardly to even admit to their own fears.

So you are saying that you have never, at any point in your life, ever violated any law?

What if i am? I would have to say ya i never broke the law.

Good on you if so. Most US citizens cannot say the same. Except when they feel the need to lie in an illegal immigration debate.

Thats too bad for those persons.



Yeah, like those wrong Jews breaking the Nuremburg laws. How vile.

Law is not morality.

I see no bearing of this on this topic. Besides, never said i dont agree with all laws, just i dont go breaking them JUST because I disagree.



You said they were "being illegal" and that "being illegal" is a crime, and since law is morality in your book, "being illegal" is "wrong."


You dont think moving across a border is not an activity? And saying being illegal you knew what i meant by saying they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS..meaning persons that move into another land ILLEGALLY.

Comming from someone with that kind of fascistoid mindset, I'll take it as a compliment.So you assert, but why? Is it because anything that is law is by per definition just? Or is it because you're a sad little fascist who can't fathom that to resist is duty when injustice is law?

Nice attack post jerkoff. If you dont like the law, change it, not break it. Only a immature anarchist.

You're talking about certain people having their right to freedom of movement taken away, without even having a say in the matter. Hell, a great many countries has it written into their basic legal code that civil disobedience is a right when laws are unjust. And anything criminalizing immi/emigration is per fucking definition unjust.

No, what is unjust is those like you that want to let anyone in but complain how our own citizens dont have jobs....hypocrits.

But hey, be a good little sheep & obey dear leader.


Who said i was a sheep? If you actually would ask instead of making yourself look STUPID, you would find out i am for small government. Dumb shit.

You left out the concentration camps. Bad fascist.

Oh you mean those "camps" that are hold terrorists? Oh yes, lets let go of the murderous terrorists....:mad:




Bullshit. "Normal" people do "illegal" things ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Ever speed while driving? Everyone does, depending on the road and the situation. Ever jaywalk? You know, crossing a street ILLEGALLY? Everyone does.

Where the fuck do you live? You would have to go state by state to see the differences of laws and such. And who are you to say that "everone" breaks the law?


Then there's those little crimes that no one cares about. Like assault. It's OK to get into fights and hit people, yes? Especially in school. But assault is assault is assault, is illegal, is illegal, is always illegal. And then how much of the population uses, or has ever used, an illegal drug? More than you'd probably like to admit.

Depends on the state you are in.

The problem people have with illegal immigration is not the law. Anti-illegal-immigrants never seem to go around going "Driving too fast is ILLEGAL. Let's deport all the ILLEGAL drivers!!!!!!! WE NEED MINEFIELDS TO PROTECT US!" Know why? Because you don't give a shit about the law. You give a shit about the evil immigrants "outbreeding" natives. You give a shit about those strange languages and skin colors, in YOUR neighborhood. You give a shit because you're scared and xenophobic. And nationalistic, as evidenced by your "LOL PILLBOXES" fascist-answer.

When i read this, i started laughing. I thought this guy is a load of shit. Then i realized he is serious and shows how some people are stupid. I DONT WANT illegal immigrants for that reason, BECAUSE they are breaking the LAW.

So go on fooling yourself. I see straight through you and the other pseudo-neo-nazis who are too cowardly to even admit to their own fears.


Your a stupid shit. You have no idea why i think the way i do. I think we need to ban this troll.

My solution is to create and market a soft drink, called 'Hola Cola', to the illegal immigrants (whose majority happen to be hispanic) and use the funds to help pay for the border fence and more ICE agents to track down the illegal immigrants and boot their asses out. Here's my marketing slogan:
"Hola Cola, it's not just great ... it's spictacular!"

And no, that is not a spelling mistake lol :p

your honest answer was at best poorly worded. cause it made no sense as a response.



wtf? do you know what a definition is?

I seriously think you need to learn how to read, along with a few others on here. Take a breath and relook at what i said. Not that hard.

What if i am? I would have to say ya i never broke the law.

Really? Never walked across the street at anywhere but a crosswalk or intersection? Never driven too fast?

Wow.

Thats too bad for those persons.

Well no, it's more like too bad for your argument that law = morality.


I see no bearing of this on this topic. Besides, never said i dont agree with all laws, just i dont go breaking them JUST because I disagree.


Illegal immigrants don't do so "because they disagree," they really have no other choice what with legal immigration to US being so difficult.

It's not like illegal immigration is something that's done for shits and giggles. You risk death the whole way, exploitation, and persecution at the destination. The thing is, all of that is better than life in the home country.


You dont think moving across a border is not an activity?

Moving across is an activity. Having moved across is a state of being.

You don't say they crossed illegally, you say they are BEING illegal. Again this implies their life itself is a criminal activity.

And saying being illegal you knew what i meant by saying they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS..meaning persons that move into another land ILLEGALLY.

I know what you mean. All too well.

I also know that, whatever you say, you do seem to think law = morality by the way you self-righteously scream "ILLEGALLY!!!!!" as if that's some sort of rational argument.

Oh you mean those "camps" that are hold terrorists? Oh yes, lets let go of the murderous terrorists..

I guess an arguemnt about due process of law would be appropriate here, but it's offtopic and you would probably just ignore it. It's funny though that in the same post you deny nazi-esque thinking, you are actually defending what is by definition, a concentration camp...

Where the fuck do you live? You would have to go state by state to see the differences of laws and such. And who are you to say that "everone" breaks the law?

I live in Southern California.

And the differences in laws aren't that relevant. Most Americans violate the law sometime in their life, and most probably on a fairly regular basis. The US also has the largest prison population in the world, meaning American Citizens are the ones who commit more crimes.

When i read this, i started laughing. I thought this guy is a load of shit. Then i realized he is serious and shows how some people are stupid. I DONT WANT illegal immigrants for that reason, BECAUSE they are breaking the LAW.

Ah yes - I must be stupid, because I am still refusing to equate LAW with MORALITY.

Again the Nuremberg Laws come into play here. You seem to think that Jews, by BEING ILLEGAL Jews, would be morally wrong to dare violate the laws of Nazi Germany. Because LAW = GOOD, ALWAYS. According to you.

So yeah. I'm stupid? Nah. I am fairly fucking right on and this is more clear - scarily more clear - with each post you make.


Your a stupid shit. You have no idea why i think the way i do. I think we need to ban this troll.

You're right, you might have any number of reasons for supporting fascism and arguing in favor of nazi-esque authoritarian nationalism. I can only guess, because the only thing you're giving is "LOL THEY ARE BEING ILLEGAL!" and "LOL UR STUPID."

The penalty for speeding is a ticket and/or jail time. The penalty for jaywalking is a ticket. The penalty for passing the American border illegally is deportation. Your argument that all people who do something illegal should be deported is non sequitur Greater Trostia.

And plenty of immigrants come here illegally to participate in our ludacris welfare system which gives out my tax money indiscriminatly to whoever seems to ask for it. That is outragous right there, but that is my personal belief.

And while we are discussing my personal beliefs, it's also my belief that if someone is coming here to better their lot in life, they would try their utmost to adhire to the lifestyle and culture of the new country they immigrated too. For every immigrant who comes here, learns English and comforms to a general American lifestyle and culture, there are those who refuse too. They are here to assimlate into an American lifestyle, not the other way around. The ones who do do so are seen as Americans dispite their national origin while those who aren't give the rest of that group a bad name.

Illegal immigrants don't do so "because they disagree," they really have no other choice what with legal immigration to US being so difficult.yep... sooo difficult that they can't see any other method of coming across except by illegal means. I'm sure they exhausted all other forms of legally getting across, including filling out the forms, trying to raise the money, even talking with the embassies... you can prove that they did attempt all that and not just paid some guy to sneak them across... right?

You don't say they crossed illegally, you say they are BEING illegal. Again this implies their life itself is a criminal activity.as long as they are here illegally, then yes, their life here is a criminal activity.


I also know that, whatever you say, you do seem to think law = morality by the way you self-righteously scream "ILLEGALLY!!!!!" as if that's some sort of rational argument.
because they are here ILLEGALLY, and they should be punished if caught. same as if you are caught doing anything illegal, you are given the punishment fit for that crime.

I seriously think you need to learn how to read, along with a few others on here.

yes, i'm sure it's all our faults.


you responded to my question of whether illegality is definitionally the same as wrongness by saying,
Yes[,] [according to] this nation[']s laws[]. If there was no law that you [had] to sign up to be a citizen and apply for it, then []it wouldn[']t be illegal would it? Thing is[,] we have the laws there[ ](and in my opinion a good thing too)[ ]for good reasons. Our nation maybe many things[,] like pretty darn wealthy, but if we [allow] unfettered immigration, will we be that after [] many years? Didn[']t think so....

which doesn't address the question at all.

because they are here ILLEGALLY, and they should be punished if caught. same as if you are caught doing anything illegal, you are given the punishment fit for that crime.

the punishment that fits this crime is to be given the proper paperwork and a hearty handshake that says "welcome to usia!"

the punishment that fits this crime is to be given the proper paperwork and a hearty handshake that says "welcome to usia!"
Gee, if that's punishment to you, I sure hate to see you as a judge. you'ld probaby sentence someone guilty of B&E with the deed of the place they broke into. or reward drunk driving with free beer and a new car. :rolleyes:

Gee, if that's punishment to you, I sure hate to see you as a judge. you'ld probaby sentence someone guilty of B&E with the deed of the place they broke into. or reward drunk driving with free beer and a new car. :rolleyes:

those things are actually wrong (well, sometimes - sometimes you do deserve to gain use rights to a place you broke into). unlike freedom of movement, which is why there are different proper responses to them.

yep... sooo difficult that they can't see any other method of coming across except by illegal means. I'm sure they exhausted all other forms of legally getting across, including filling out the forms, trying to raise the money, even talking with the embassies... you can prove that they did attempt all that and not just paid some guy to sneak them across... right?

There's about 98 forms to fill out. And how much money "raising" do you think you could do if you're a Mexican laborer trying to immigrate? Let's see, average wage in Mexico, 2 dollars, average total fees well into the thousands of dollars... multiplied by numbers of people trying to immigrate... yes, they could have a fundraising event at Boy Scouts, that should take care of it.

Tell you what, why don't you prove to me that people illegally immigrate just because they're lazy. Then I'll bother addressing the rest.

as long as they are here illegally, then yes, their life here is a criminal activity.

Nope. It isn't. Crossing the border illegally is a crime. You are trying to ignore double jeopardy, by charging them with the crime of having existed after the crime. Doesn't work. But it does show that since you believe it, I don't need to prove it - you honestly believe that illegal immigrants are being criminals by being ALIVE.

Ergo the solution is to kill them.

The nazis came up with the exact same conclusion. After trying to deport those "being criminal" Jews, it became more economically viable to just kill them. After all, they were illegal people... hardly even human eh? Just ILLEGALS with their horrid ILLEGAL living!

because they are here ILLEGALLY, and they should be punished if caught. same as if you are caught doing anything illegal, you are given the punishment fit for that crime.

That has nothing to do with morality and law being one in the same. Fail.

Next time, let the Fourth Reich of Earabia answer posts I address to him, I'm sick of this hive-minded anti-immigrant nonsense where I'll probably have to say the same thing again, just because you felt like piping up in defense of your beloved comrade-in-fascism.

those things are actually wrong (well, sometimes - sometimes you do deserve to gain use rights to a place you broke into). unlike freedom of movement, which is why there are different proper responses to them.

movement itself is free. but crossing borders that have been set and reconized by various governing bodies requires agreements by both the country one is exiting and the country one is entering.

at least obeying the country's rules is at least courtious.

and if the problem is the countries laws governing entry, then the solution is to change those laws. Breaking them only tells the country that tighter security is needed.

There's about 98 forms to fill out. Wow... that's tough... And how much money "raising" do you think you could do if you're a Mexican laborer trying to immigrate? bet you it's less than what they pay the Coyotes to sneak them across. one PBS special had laborors in debt to those Coyotes for YEARS.

yes, they could have a fundraising event at Boy Scouts, that should take care of it. Why not. why not have a fundraising event organized by some family in the US and have them send that money to some "deserving" family that wants to immigrate over. that's at least legal.

Tell you what, why don't you prove to me that people illegally immigrate just because they're lazy. Then I'll bother addressing the rest.you're the one saying that it's soo hard to come over. so I'm assuming that all those who snuck over at least tried the legal way. and those who just went to the "sneak across" tactic are the ones too lazy to even attempt some of the legal ways.

Nope. It isn't. Crossing the border illegally is a crime. You are trying to ignore double jeopardy, by charging them with the crime of having existed after the crime. Doesn't work. But it does show that since you believe it, I don't need to prove it - you honestly believe that illegal immigrants are being criminals by being ALIVE.they crossed the border illegally. and they are here illegally. thus it's still one crime. there is no double Jeopardy since they are still committing the ONE crime of being in the country illegally.

Ergo the solution is to kill them.that's your solution. and you call others fascists? if that is your only solution, then that only shows your fascism. (btw, while other have, I've never advocated killing them.)

The nazis came up with the exact same conclusion. After trying to deport those "being criminal" Jews, it became more economically viable to just kill them. After all, they were illegal people... hardly even human eh? Just ILLEGALS with their horrid ILLEGAL living!your facination with nazism and facism kinda makes you calling it out on others rather hypocritical.

That has nothing to do with morality and law being one in the same. Fail.I've never argued morality and law being the same. so you fail.

Next time, let the Fourth Reich of Earabia answer posts I address to him, I'm sick of this hive-minded anti-immigrant nonsense where I'll probably have to say the same thing again, just because you felt like piping up in defense of your beloved comrade-in-fascism.gee... so while you can pop in and answer posts directed to others, you forbid others doing the same to you? nice... again with the fascism and nazism. what other thing do you wish to control?

Really? Never walked across the street at anywhere but a crosswalk or intersection? Never driven too fast?

Wow.

Never, but that is besides the point.


Well no, it's more like too bad for your argument that law = morality.

Actually it is. Until it is changed by its citizens it is considered a morality if it is a law. If you dont like it, try and change it. Thats what us civilized citizens do when we dont like something.




Illegal immigrants don't do so "because they disagree," they really have no other choice what with legal immigration to US being so difficult.

No other choice? Are you serious? They have many choices in their life, they could stay in their nation and make it better, they could go to another nation like good old Canada and aso many more....everyone has many choices in life GT.

It's not like illegal immigration is something that's done for shits and giggles. You risk death the whole way, exploitation, and persecution at the destination. The thing is, all of that is better than life in the home country.

I liek how you go to sarcams when you can't admit your wrong...if they dont like what they have in home country, maybe they should try to change it?




Moving across is an activity. Having moved across is a state of being.

You don't say they crossed illegally, you say they are BEING illegal. Again this implies their life itself is a criminal activity.

Same damn thing. They are and being illegal by what they are doing. What part of this dont you get?



I know what you mean. All too well.

I also know that, whatever you say, you do seem to think law = morality by the way you self-righteously scream "ILLEGALLY!!!!!" as if that's some sort of rational argument.

I also explained what i meant by it above. ANd it is rational, you just dont like it that it is.



I guess an arguemnt about due process of law would be appropriate here, but it's offtopic and you would probably just ignore it. It's funny though that in the same post you deny nazi-esque thinking, you are actually defending what is by definition, a concentration camp...

Nice attack insult. Its not nazi thinking, its called protecting our nation, asshole. Also they are getting WAY better treatment then ANY Jew got from the Nazis in pre-WW2. I seriously think many posters on here need to reread their history books...also, the mass majority of the Jews did no wrongof that time, PLUS these are terrorists that attacked our citizens over seas or is part of the al Qaeda group....get your facts straight.



I live in Southern California.

And the differences in laws aren't that relevant. Most Americans violate the law sometime in their life, and most probably on a fairly regular basis. The US also has the largest prison population in the world, meaning American Citizens are the ones who commit more crimes.

Actually it does matter what state your in. Each state has a slightly differnet set of rules and how they view the issue. And what is with this most word? Are you god and can tell us that every, single, American breaks the law? If you think you are, your full of bull...Want to know why we have the largest prison population? Because we actually follow through with our laws and punish for those that break our laws. Plus our nation is like the third LARGEST IN THE WORLD. Many if you are going to compare, do it right...



Ah yes - I must be stupid, because I am still refusing to equate LAW with MORALITY.

Did i say your stupid? Didnt think so....nice derailing of the debate here....

Again the Nuremberg Laws come into play here. You seem to think that Jews, by BEING ILLEGAL Jews, would be morally wrong to dare violate the laws of Nazi Germany. Because LAW = GOOD, ALWAYS. According to you.

No why i said it is not comparable is because that was a DIFFERENT time and people thenwhat we have today. Why comparing Hitler and Hussein in the literal sense is kinda stupid to me or comparing Bush to hitler is also rediculous.

So yeah. I'm stupid? Nah. I am fairly fucking right on and this is more clear - scarily more clear - with each post you make.

Nice derailing of the debate.



You're right, you might have any number of reasons for supporting fascism and arguing in favor of nazi-esque authoritarian nationalism. I can only guess, because the only thing you're giving is "LOL THEY ARE BEING ILLEGAL!" and "LOL UR STUPID."


Another fine example of derailing the topic. Oh yes your so right by showing this garbage of derailment....:rolleyes:

There's about 98 forms to fill out. And how much money "raising" do you think you could do if you're a Mexican laborer trying to immigrate? Let's see, average wage in Mexico, 2 dollars, average total fees well into the thousands of dollars... multiplied by numbers of people trying to immigrate... yes, they could have a fundraising event at Boy Scouts, that should take care of it.


Oh boo hoo. We already have plenty of sad stories in this nation GT. What about them?

Tell you what, why don't you prove to me that people illegally immigrate just because they're lazy. Then I'll bother addressing the rest.

Nice. Did we say they were lazy? Didnt think so...



Nope. It isn't. Crossing the border illegally is a crime. You are trying to ignore double jeopardy, by charging them with the crime of having existed after the crime. Doesn't work. But it does show that since you believe it, I don't need to prove it - you honestly believe that illegal immigrants are being criminals by being ALIVE.

The point is the parents shouldnt be here IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Ergo the solution is to kill them.

The nazis came up with the exact same conclusion. After trying to deport those "being criminal" Jews, it became more economically viable to just kill them. After all, they were illegal people... hardly even human eh? Just ILLEGALS with their horrid ILLEGAL living!

Here you go again with the nazi thing, nice, is this all you can use to debate? By the way Junii, he even doesnt understand all the details of the hsitorical time of the Nazis..:rolleyes:
He doesnt even realize that Hitler actually would of loved to deport all teh Jews of the tiem, it would of saved him monies and time. But it was actualy the INTERNATIONAL community that denied the Jews entery, but of course GT doesnt want you to think fo that.



That has nothing to do with morality and law being one in the same. Fail.

Already exxplained to you, tehy are morality UNTIL the society in that nation changes it.

Next time, let the Fourth Reich of Earabia answer posts I address to him, I'm sick of this hive-minded anti-immigrant nonsense where I'll probably have to say the same thing again, just because you felt like piping up in defense of your beloved comrade-in-fascism.


nice attack post, your troll asshole. If you knew anything about me i am for small government unless it deals with the areas they are suppose to be in, like protecting our nations borders.

Oh boo hoo. We already have plenty of sad stories in this nation GT. What about them?

The point, which sadly flies over your head, is that "LEGAL!!!!!!" immigration is made so difficult that often the only way to immigrate is illegally.


The point is the parents shouldnt be here IN THE FIRST PLACE.

....what parents?

Here you go again with the nazi thing, nice, is this all you can use to debate?

Is "THEY ARE ILLLEEEEEEEGAL" all you can use to debate?

By the way Junii, he even doesnt understand all the details of the hsitorical time of the Nazis..:rolleyes:

Gossip doesn't work, if I'm right here.


He doesnt even realize that Hitler actually would of loved to deport all teh Jews of the tiem, it would of saved him monies and time. But it was actualy the INTERNATIONAL community that denied the Jews entery, but of course GT doesnt want you to think fo that.

Right. Denied entry. Sounds familiar to me. "THOSE JEWS ARE ILLEGAL! WE HAVE TOO MANY SAD STORIES HERE, THEY ARE WRONG TO BE HERE!"

You yourself would have been among those who sent the Jews to their death. Because "they're illegal."

I'm glad you understand that rather crucial point and why I bring up the issue of the Jews.

Already exxplained to you, tehy are morality UNTIL the society in that nation changes it.

No, they are law. Sorry, you don't need to "explain" (repeat) that morality=law. You need to make the case first, and you haven't. Frankly, you won't, because all I need to do is point out the Nuremberg Laws. Are you going to say that the Nuremberg Laws were JUSTIFIED and MORALLY RIGHT? After all... they were laws.

Answer the question.

nice attack post, your troll asshole.

I find this statement incredibly ironic given that you've been blurting out "asshole" and "stupid" for the past couple of posts. You want to debate, fine, but while nazism as an example is rather relevant to my points, whether I am stupid, or an asshole, or not, is not relevant to yours.

Never, but that is besides the point.

Ah, but it isn't. You want to refuse people entry into the US because they have committed a crime. Yet you have no problem with US citizens committing a crime and remaining within the US. This is a double standard.

Actually it is. Until it is changed by its citizens it is considered a morality if it is a law.

You don't seem to understand what morality is. Morality is an unwritten code of virtue or ethical standards, of "right" and "wrong." Law is a written standard of punishable versus unpunishable behavior. It is currently against the law for me to cross the street at anywhere but a legal intersection or crosswalk. It is not IMMORAL to jaywalk.

If you honestly just don't understand this point, there is absolutely nothing more I can do except throw the dictionary at you in the vain hope that maybe you'll read it.

Wow... that's tough...

It is.

But I suppose you're different just like Earabia... you've not only never committed a crime, but you have a near-orgasmic love for layer after layer of bureacratic red-tape?

bet you it's less than what they pay the Coyotes to sneak them across. one PBS special had laborors in debt to those Coyotes for YEARS.

Keyword, debt. They can afford to get in debt because the Coyotes will give them a loan that no one else will. Again, they wouldn't do this if there was a viable legal alternative, or do you think they just become indentured servants for FUN?

Why not. why not have a fundraising event organized by some family in the US and have them send that money to some "deserving" family that wants to immigrate over. that's at least legal.

I have a better idea - make it easier to immigrate legally, by cutting the red-tape and removing ethnic quotas.

But as for "why not," it's not up to an immigrant whether Americans are going to have fundraising for them. Your position was that the immigrant should start the fundraising. Somehow.

you're the one saying that it's soo hard to come over. so I'm assuming that all those who snuck over at least tried the legal way. and those who just went to the "sneak across" tactic are the ones too lazy to even attempt some of the legal ways.

What does laziness have to do with it? Other than an attempt to portray immigrants as lazy, no-good, evil ILLEGALs with moral failings and a desire to rape our wimmins and takes our jobs?


they crossed the border illegally. and they are here illegally. thus it's still one crime. there is no double Jeopardy since they are still committing the ONE crime of being in the country illegally.

Crossing the border is the crime. Not "being illegal." Sorry.

that's your solution.

Nope, you see I'm not the one arguing that they are "being illegal" nor am I dehumanizing them by calling them lazy or using cute little terms like "illegals" instead of "illegal immigrants."

Incidentally, why does anyone call them "illegals?" Is it because they're too lazy to type out "immigrant?"

and you call others fascists?

Yes. I do.

your facination with nazism and facism kinda makes you calling it out on others rather hypocritical.

Uh, in what way? Are you saying I'm a nazi or fascist, because you deliberately misinterpretd my statement to mean MY solution is killing people, that MY solution is extreme border militarism and nationalism? That would be your misunderstanding, not my hypocrisy.

If I have a "fascination" with fascism, it's because it's rising up around me and that worries me, as someone who prefers freedom and reason.

I've never argued morality and law being the same. so you fail.

So, you defend the arguments of others - Earabia, who has indeed argued that - but you are unaware of what they are?

gee... so while you can pop in and answer posts directed to others, you forbid others doing the same to you?

Not sure what you're on about.

1) I'm not "forbidding" anyone. I don't have any power to control what others post. I just prefer that others don't speak for others, since it leads to things where you are defending points you apparently don't agree with, and I have to repeat myself just because you haven't been following along.

2) The post I answered was one you directed at me. Not anyone else. But I did make this thread so I am sorta considering everyone's response in it, a response to my post.

nice... again with the fascism and nazism. what other thing do you wish to control?

Right. Forum post preference is equatable with putting land mines on the border in order to secure our fatherland against the lazy, immoral non-nationals.

:rolleyes:

my solution would be to stop dressing it up as a problem. magic!

It is.yep... better to get yourself in debt with some coyote who can threaten your family if you don't pay up than to risk a nasty papercut by all those forms. :rolleyes:

But I suppose you're different just like Earabia... you've not only never committed a crime, but you have a near-orgasmic love for layer after layer of bureacratic red-tape?why, you only believe that the only ones who can argue for upholding the law are those who have never broken it. yep... to you anyone who's littered, made any mistake at all should never speak out about upholding the law. :rolleyes: Nevermind that I never said anything about me not breaking any laws... but this seems to be a favorite argument of yours. ANYONE WHO BREAKS ANY LAW CANNOT SPEAK OUT IN SUPPORT OF THEM.

Keyword, debt. They can afford to get in debt because the Coyotes will give them a loan that no one else will. Again, they wouldn't do this if there was a viable legal alternative, or do you think they just become indentured servants for FUN?oh, so the problem about their banks and their country's financial institutions is AMERICA'S fault. their inability to get loans is AMERICA's problem. :rolleyes:

I have a better idea - make it easier to immigrate legally, by cutting the red-tape and removing ethnic quotas. which is part of my solution. but apparently you feel it's easier to lump me with everyone else who disagrees with you.

But as for "why not," it's not up to an immigrant whether Americans are going to have fundraising for them. Your position was that the immigrant should start the fundraising. Somehow. no, my posistion with that post is that those HELPING to hide and assist ILLEGAL Immigrants should refocus that energy to helping them enter legally. but you think that EVERYONE against Illegal Immigration is against ALL IMMIGRATION. once more taking the EASY way out by GENERALISING people into a those who agree with Greater Trostia 100% and those FASCISTS and NAZI's who don't agree with Greater Trostia 100%. :rolleyes:

What does laziness have to do with it? Other than an attempt to portray immigrants as lazy, no-good, evil ILLEGALs with moral failings and a desire to rape our wimmins and takes our jobs?and where did I EVER say that those illegals have Moral Failings and a desire to Rape and pillage? you said it, and you think I said it, thus it must something YOU believe.

Crossing the border is the crime. Not "being illegal." Sorry.gee... Crossig the Border... and what... while they are here they are guilty of what? CROSSING THE BORDER! until the next amnesty is announced they are still guilty of that, and when those who illegally cross the border and stay in a country they illegally entered or past their agreed time, what are they? an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. that is what Illegal Immigration is. those guilty of CROSSING THE BORDER. and since they did not have their crime resolved, yes, they are guilty and thus Illegal.

and if it can be proven that they crossed ILLEGALLY, (cannot provide the appropriate papers and forms, yes, the same forms they needed to fill out.) then they are GUILTY of the crime of ILLEGALLY CROSSING THE BORDER.

just like if you can be proven to Jaywalk, Litter, Speeding, etc. you will be given the appropriate and prescribed punishment according to the law.

Nope, you see I'm not the one arguing that they are "being illegal" nor am I dehumanizing them by calling them lazy or using cute little terms like "illegals" instead of "illegal immigrants."

yet, you (and I am not counting the others you are arguing with, only the conversation between you and me. which is why I said it was YOUR solution, it's not mine) think that I am calling to execute them all.

...you honestly believe that illegal immigrants are being criminals by being ALIVE.

Ergo the solution is to kill them.again, if you read my suggestion, it didn't call for any form of Execution. just Deportation and confiscation/heavy fines.

and no where in any post did I say, inferre or otherwise hint that illegal immigrants are being criminals by being alive.

Incidentally, why does anyone call them "illegals?" Is it because they're too lazy to type out "immigrant?" Probably, since just calling them Immigrants would include those who are here legally. Abbriviating names/lables is a common practice. You don't call them the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION but referre to them as the ACLU. I've seen people call you GT instead of Greater Trostia and you don't seem to mind that. I myself am called Ju at times. I don't mind.

I refer to them as Illegals, but only after using Illegal Immigrants, to specifically target those who are here because of their using illegal means to either enter or remain within any country. call it laziness, call it being expediant, but remember, alot of people also think Illegal Immigrants only means Mexicans. Forgetting that other nationalities also enter other countries illegally.

Uh, in what way? Are you saying I'm a nazi or fascist, because you deliberately misinterpretd my statement to mean MY solution is killing people, that MY solution is extreme border militarism and nationalism? That would be your misunderstanding, not my hypocrisy.gee, so if I misinterpreted your statement, it's a misunderstanding, yet if you misinterpret my statement I'm a Facisist. :rolleyes:

If I have a "fascination" with fascism, it's because it's rising up around me and that worries me, as someone who prefers freedom and reason.at the expense of law, order, and the legal ways to change said laws... that makes you an anarchist. BUT I know you don't want to remove all laws. thus I wouldn't call you one while you seem free to toss those labels around to anyone that seems to disagree with you.

So, you defend the arguments of others - Earabia, who has indeed argued that - but you are unaware of what they are?I did not defend Earabia's arguments. I only countered your arguments that I disagreed with. if you noticed, I did not reply to your entire post. only certain parts to it. And nowhere did I ever say that Earabia is correct, or that I agree with Earabia's solution.

Not sure what you're on about.

1) I'm not "forbidding" anyone. I don't have any power to control what others post. I just prefer that others don't speak for others, since it leads to things where you are defending points you apparently don't agree with, and I have to repeat myself just because you haven't been following along.ah, but if YOU also read, I did not counter all your agruments with Earabia. and it's also apparent you didn't read my suggestion. but I didn't call that up until you nitpicked about answering posts that wasn't directed specifically to me. something YOU and others did to me in other threads yet I don't call you or them on it.

also, I did not ANSWER for Earabia, I never said I was.

2) The post I answered was one you directed at me. Not anyone else. But I did make this thread so I am sorta considering everyone's response in it, a response to my post. and in that post you replied, I never touched upon the subject of calling for anyone's death. something you mistakenly assumed I favored.

Right. Forum post preference is equatable with putting land mines on the border in order to secure our fatherland against the lazy, immoral non-nationals. hey, I'm not the one trying to limit who responds to what here.

and now a comment on a post you made to Earabia...
Right. Denied entry. Sounds familiar to me. "THOSE JEWS ARE ILLEGAL! WE HAVE TOO MANY SAD STORIES HERE, THEY ARE WRONG TO BE HERE!"

You yourself would have been among those who sent the Jews to their death. Because "they're illegal."

I'm glad you understand that rather crucial point and why I bring up the issue of the Jewswait... so other countries deny those fleeing Jews entry, and you call it Nazism? you blame the denial of entry of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany by OTHER COUNTRIES on the Nazis and Fascism?

and are the Illegal Immigrants coming into the USA being directly threatened with Physical and Immediate harm by their Government? if so, there is Requests for Asylum though our Embassies, a legal way mind you. unless your argument is the home country's poor economy. Do you think it should be AMERICA's responsibility to monitor and control another country's economy?

By the way Junii, he even doesnt understand all the details of the hsitorical time of the Nazis... That is your opinion, but also keep in mind, I am not in complete agreement with your ideas. I never posted against them because most of the posts against them, I agree with or can't/wont argue against. I popped in to GT's one because it was the one that stood out to me, and I answered them according to my views, not your. ;)

my solution would be to stop dressing it up as a problem. magic!so you would rather a naked issue? :p

and if the problem is the countries laws governing entry, then the solution is to change those laws. Breaking them only tells the country that tighter security is needed.

no one is obligated to obey unjust laws. in fact the obligation runs in the opposite direction entirely. this principle is a fairly obvious one, as to hold otherwise is to require that people participate in genocide provided the law of their nation says so.

so work to change them, yes. but obeying them in the meantime is not required or even necessarily a good idea.

no one is obligated to obey unjust laws. in fact the obligation runs in the opposite direction entirely. this principle is a fairly obvious one, as to hold otherwise is to require that people participate in genocide provided the law of their nation says so.

so work to change them, yes. but obeying them in the meantime is not required or even necessarily a good idea.yes, people are obligated to obey unjust laws. refusal to obey them lands one in jail or worse. so breaking them also isn't necessarily a good idea.

and while the police and other law enforcement agencies are required to uphold the law, reguardless of what they think, you force them to put civilians in jail and force them into bad light. but no one thinks of that. only that the police are fascists for doing their job.

yes, people are obligated to obey unjust laws. refusal to obey them lands one in jail or worse. so breaking them also isn't necessarily a good idea.

i mean obligation in an ethical sense, rather than a coercive sense.

and while the police and other law enforcement agencies are required to uphold the law, reguardless of what they think, you force them to put civilians in jail and force them into bad light. but no one thinks of that. only that the police are fascists for doing their job.

in so far as police can legitimately enforce anything, they must stick with upholding just laws. cops enforcing unjust laws are to be stripped of their power by whatever means necessary.

wow....28 pages? I thought this would have died after 16 or 17...:eek:




I thought of something, one of the reasons mexico doesn't help us is because of the money those people send back....So since they use our resources, like health care, would anybody be ok with giving them free health care but billing mexico for it? And if they don't pay within a timeframe we put an increases tariff on their goods to make up for it? That may encourage mexico to help stop illegal immigration and decrease the hit we take for it..Just a thought.

i mean obligation in an ethical sense, rather than a coercive sense. ah... ok.

in so far as police can legitimately enforce anything, they must stick with upholding just laws. cops enforcing unjust laws are to be stripped of their power by whatever means necessary.and who defines Unjust laws? the courts?

so if the law survives reveiw to become a standing law, then it's not unjust. current Immigration laws and procedures were in place for years. thus they must then be just.

or must each law be reviewed after a certain amount of time passes. then that puts more burden on the court system/government. rather ineffective, and until the review process is done, the law is still just. so what happens to those in jail when a law is declared unjust? are they then released with a "sorry"? or are they given restitution money... and where would that money come from? the taxpayers. rather inefficent and very clumbsy.

what happens when someone like the mother who attempted to sell her 7-year old daughter into prostitution is found guilty and a year later, the laws/policies that once say that she was mentally competent change to say she's no longer mentally competent... is she then to be sent to an institution where she could be 'cured' and sent to live with her daughter in less than 20 years?

or do you mean each and every individual officer/agent gets to define which laws are "unjust".

I can't even imagine the chaos that would be happening if that's what you mean.

I thought of something, one of the reasons mexico doesn't help us is because of the money those people send back....So since they use our resources, like health care, would anybody be ok with giving them free health care but billing mexico for it? And if they don't pay within a timeframe we put an increases tariff on their goods to make up for it? That may encourage mexico to help stop illegal immigration and decrease the hit we take for it..Just a thought.
Unless a treaty/agreement is signed to allow this, enforcing/forcing payment would be tough.

and who defines Unjust laws?

everyone. we are always individually responsible for making sure our actions are in conformity with at least a plausible system of justice and morality, no matter what anyone else says. "just following orders" is never an excuse. it's tough, but it's life.

everyone. we are always individually responsible for making sure our actions are in conformity with at least a plausible system of justice and morality, no matter what anyone else says. "just following orders" is never an excuse. it's tough, but it's life.
so if one officer decides that 1 mph above the speed limit is enough for a ticket while another will give a grace range of 5, you won't mind that form of confusion?

after all, if each individual can decide what's just or unjust...

one cop could decide that anyone caught in the act of raping another person could be excecuted right then and there. some people would consider that just, while others would be appalled by the lack of "trial by jury". who's to say what is right if every individual can decide what is unjust/just?

everyone votes on it? then majority rules. and if the majority decide to make Same Sex Marriage illegal, would you agree then that it's just?

SCOTUS? well it falls back to then if the law was in place years ago, then it's Just.

calls for review? it falls back to putting more burden on the Courts and should it change, what then? a "sorry" for those who are now 'wronged'?

so if one officer decides that 1 mph above the speed limit is enough for a ticket while another will give a grace range of 5, you won't mind that form of confusion?

after all, if each individual can decide what's just or unjust...

one cop could decide that anyone caught in the act of raping another person could be excecuted right then and there. some people would consider that just, while others would be appalled by the lack of "trial by jury". who's to say what is right if every individual can decide what is unjust/just?

individual responsibility for deciding whether they ought to follow some rule does not entail that whatever an individual decides is just. what determines that is if the decision in question actually is just. this can only be determined through the use of argument and appeal to moral intuitions and sentiments. not all arguments are equally good and not all moral systems are equally plausible, so we have to sort out the better ones from the ones that are clearly crap.

any idea of justice that is fundamentally connected to 'whatever the state says' is trivially wrong, based on the existence of fascism. it can't even be seriously entertained. similarly for 'whatever the majority of people say'.

individual responsibility for deciding whether they ought to follow some rule does not entail that whatever an individual decides is just. what determines that is if the decision in question actually is just. this can only be determined through the use of argument and appeal to moral intuitions and sentiments. not all arguments are equally good and not all moral systems are equally plausible, so we have to sort out the better ones from the ones that are clearly crap.

any idea of justice that is fundamentally connected to 'whatever the state says' is trivially wrong, based on the existence of fascism. it can't even be seriously entertained. similarly for 'whatever the majority of people say'.

and that is why we have a court system in place now. those who honestly do think that their arrest/ticket/fine is "wrong" and "Unjust" can use that system to argue their point. just as anyone who thinks a law is unjust can file, via lawyers and politicians, challenges of a law they consider unjust (a method that doesn't require one breaking said law.) there is also garnering support of other citizens by use of the media.

but until those laws change, the officers are still required to uphold those laws to the best of their abilities and also with the confines of those laws.

which puts them back into the catagory of "just following orders" because they are required to, and not by choice.

and that is why we have a court system in place now. those who honestly do think that their arrest/ticket/fine is "wrong" and "Unjust" can use that system to argue their point. just as anyone who thinks a law is unjust can file, via lawyers and politicians, challenges of a law they consider unjust (a method that doesn't require one breaking said law.) there is also garnering support of other citizens by use of the media.

but until those laws change, the officers are still required to uphold those laws to the best of their abilities and also with the confines of those laws.

which puts them back into the catagory of "just following orders" because they are required to, and not by choice.

is/ought

Shoot em' all.


...the minutemen, that is.

That is your opinion, but also keep in mind, I am not in complete agreement with your ideas. I never posted against them because most of the posts against them, I agree with or can't/wont argue against. I popped in to GT's one because it was the one that stood out to me, and I answered them according to my views, not your. ;)

Actually if you were to read my posts, they are not much differnet then yours, in my opinion. I have tried to keep the comments from going to labeling other posters, but as you can see GT seems to keep moving to include you on mine/GT posts...i actually agree with much you said, not all. One reason why i was trying to keep the debate among me and GT between us too, buthe seem sto have a problem with that.

The point, which sadly flies over your head, is that "LEGAL!!!!!!" immigration is made so difficult that often the only way to immigrate is illegally.

I am glad it is made difficult to get in. It in itself makes sure we let in those that are serious of STAYING to the benifit of this nation and to their families. Not to come here to sell drugs and such like illegal activities. Just like i agree we need strong laws for buying a gun, it makes sure the safety of the nation is what is important.




....what parents?

Sorry, i got confused from another thread on a similar topic...disregard the comment.



Is "THEY ARE ILLLEEEEEEEGAL" all you can use to debate?

Actually i have backed up my postition with out attacking you at all. So no that is not all i have said.



Gossip doesn't work, if I'm right here.

Wasnt gossip. I was sending a message to the other posters with in the same post, now i can't do that?



Right. Denied entry. Sounds familiar to me. "THOSE JEWS ARE ILLEGAL! WE HAVE TOO MANY SAD STORIES HERE, THEY ARE WRONG TO BE HERE!"

You yourself would have been among those who sent the Jews to their death. Because "they're illegal."

Like the other poster said, today we have a system where if they can prove that their nation is systematically killing people like the nazis did, they can get asylum or safe passage. I actually would of been one of those that would of wanted the Jews to come here.

I'm glad you understand that rather crucial point and why I bring up the issue of the Jews.

I am sorry i dont see a relevance to how Jews have anything to do with todays illegal immigration issue. Its you that has this facination with facism.



No, they are law. Sorry, you don't need to "explain" (repeat) that morality=law. You need to make the case first, and you haven't. Frankly, you won't, because all I need to do is point out the Nuremberg Laws. Are you going to say that the Nuremberg Laws were JUSTIFIED and MORALLY RIGHT? After all... they were laws.

Answer the question.

And once again i have answered the question of morality and laws, and i am not going to bring in a totally different side issue of yours of nazi laws. That was a totally different time period and place and people then now.



I find this statement incredibly ironic given that you've been blurting out "asshole" and "stupid" for the past couple of posts. You want to debate, fine, but while nazism as an example is rather relevant to my points, whether I am stupid, or an asshole, or not, is not relevant to yours.

No it is from my frustration of you callingme a facist when it has NO relevence to the debate, its you that is derailing the debate by calling otehrs facist(like me). SO its you that needs to stop teh attack mode, i tried to at least keep it civil.



Ah, but it isn't. You want to refuse people entry into the US because they have committed a crime. Yet you have no problem with US citizens committing a crime and remaining within the US. This is a double standard.

Well because people in this nation get punished according to law, plus they were already citizens of this nation. If these immigrants were legel they would get the same legal treatment as the citizens already born and processed as citizens. I am sorry i dont agree that non-citizens should be clogging up our legel system.



You don't seem to understand what morality is. Morality is an unwritten code of virtue or ethical standards, of "right" and "wrong." Law is a written standard of punishable versus unpunishable behavior. It is currently against the law for me to cross the street at anywhere but a legal intersection or crosswalk. It is not IMMORAL to jaywalk.

Thenyou would be wrong. By our laws in this nation morality and law mix. Now i am not saying there isnt morality that doesnt exist out side the law, but our laws are sometimes based on morality(whether i agree with this or not is besides the point). Besides i looked at this issue as a legal stand point, not morality. It was you that brought up morality anyways.

If you honestly just don't understand this point, there is absolutely nothing more I can do except throw the dictionary at you in the vain hope that maybe you'll read it.


Nice avoidance. If you cant debate a topic without attack then its not worth it debating it with you. I hope the other poster has better luck with you.

everyone. we are always individually responsible for making sure our actions are in conformity with at least a plausible system of justice and morality, no matter what anyone else says. "just following orders" is never an excuse. it's tough, but it's life.

That is genuinely retarded. Craven obseiquiance to authority achieves nothing except the perpetuation of injustice and illogicality.

I am glad it is made difficult to get in.

Then you support illegal immigration.

You don't know it, because you are blinding yourself to this little thing called reality, but by making it tougher to immigrate, you make illegal immigration more appealing. And eventually, the only option.


Actually i have backed up my postition with out attacking you at all. So no that is not all i have said.

Nice avoidance. If you cant debate a topic without attack then its not worth it debating it with you. I hope the other poster has better luck with you.

If you can't be arsed to recognize what you yourself have done in this thread, why should anyone argue with you? You'll conveniently forget what you yourself say and do, so there's no reason you won't conveniently ignore what others say.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12496041&postcount=383
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12490594&postcount=361
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12496059&postcount=384
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12499155&postcount=398

Here's a hint. "You troll asshole," "you stupid shit," "jerkoff," do indeed constitute "attack posts." You have absolutely no moral high ground and it is frankly alarming that if even as much as one post goes by, you'll turn around and outright lie and claim you didn't say what you did!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12499144&postcount=397

It's alarming because it tells me you type things, and aren't aware that you typed them. That's some kind of serious issue there.

I'm not going to waste my time on you any further and I don't recommend you continue with your colorful ad homs.

Slight problem. You approach the issue from the intention to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country, whereas I want them gone. As soon as possible.

This is impractical and silly. The cost of trying to expatriate 12 million people would be astounding. Not to mention it would create a horrid backlash for any government or politician daft enough to try it. Not to mention removing them would hurt the economy in many ways, shapes and forms.

Then you support illegal immigration.

You don't know it, because you are blinding yourself to this little thing called reality, but by making it tougher to immigrate, you make illegal immigration more appealing. And eventually, the only option

Actually no, i dont support illegal immigration. Sorry to disappoint you.





If you can't be arsed to recognize what you yourself have done in this thread, why should anyone argue with you? You'll conveniently forget what you yourself say and do, so there's no reason you won't conveniently ignore what others say.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12496041&postcount=383
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12490594&postcount=361
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12496059&postcount=384
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12499155&postcount=398

Here's a hint. "You troll asshole," "you stupid shit," "jerkoff," do indeed constitute "attack posts." You have absolutely no moral high ground and it is frankly alarming that if even as much as one post goes by, you'll turn around and outright lie and claim you didn't say what you did!

Nice, taking my posts out of context, real cute. Reread again who i was talking to and many of those comment were pointing out their ACTIONS. See you have a problem understanding what a action is.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12499144&postcount=397

It's alarming because it tells me you type things, and aren't aware that you typed them. That's some kind of serious issue there.

I'm not going to waste my time on you any further and I don't recommend you continue with your colorful ad homs.

no, maybe you shouldnt start them and continue with them(insults i mean) and expect the other posters not respond in kind, maybe you should next time stick to the topic and instead not call other persons facist and attack them personally? Eh? If anyone needs to not to waste their time is me on you. You are offically on ignore.