NationStates Jolt Archive

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.


Harsh, you say?...

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of



"MEXICO!"

ok....

Do you have a link for that?

I find it hard to believe that "you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail" is official language.

Maybe some of the reason's why people want to leave Mexico? A less oppressive government in the U.S.A?

With a government that makes rules like that I'm not surprised they're all fleeing to America.

I love 5 and 6. "PLEASE don't spend your money here! We don't want it!"

Do you have a link for that?

I find it hard to believe that "you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail" is official language.

Aye, more like "Va a cazares..."

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.


Harsh, you say?...

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of



"MEXICO!"

Does this mean that all those people hopping the border into the U.S. are Americans who hopped the border to Mexico?

well considering how badly Mexico has been raped by the world since the fall of the Aztecs (my history is a little fuzzy) I’m not surprised

So what’s the big point other than that Mexico isn‘t whoring itself out quite like the rest of America?

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.


Harsh, you say?...

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of



"MEXICO!"

...

What is your point, Congo? I'm not seeing where you're going with this.

I've kept a stone in my pocket for a while now. Is this thread about me getting to throw it at somebody in the near future for breaking the law? Because that's why I keep it around. Hoping. Waiting.

The harsher of those (like waving a foreign flag) are not enforced and just remnants of a long time ago. Like those free TVs the US gov't used to give away. Nobody has bothered to legislate that rule out, but the government doesn't hand out TVs anymore. It's an obsolete law.


The others, like you dont get to vote if you're not nationality-ican, are all very commonplace rules, that make sense.

Also, IIRC, mexico doesnt have food stamps for mexicans, so...

I like it. It's a start at any rate.

`<snip>

...sounds a lot like Germany, somehow.

What did the OP expect the reaction to be? DUN LET IN MEXICINS CAUSE DEY GOVMENT R N00BZ

I like it. It's a start at any rate.

Can you explain your nationalistic tendencies to me, in extreme detail? I'd like to know why you think such harsh restrictions and xenophobia are necessary and acceptable.

...sounds a lot like Germany, somehow.
Points 1-7 raised by C.K. do not apply to Germany, Cabra.

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.


Harsh, you say?...

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of



"MEXICO!"

mexico is a poor country, they can't afford to be all humanitarian like the US can. besides, how many non spanish speakers do you really believe are trying desperately to get to mexico and put their kids through school or conduct business in anything other than spanish. the point is completely moot because no-one wants to go to mexico anyway unless they just killed someone, in which case they're going tobe keeping their heads down.

This post makes me much more sympathetic to illegal Mexican immigrants. I mean, I've never supported illicit activities of any sort, but I've always felt the punishments the US inflicts on people trying to get out of their countries was too harsh... For instance, there's a program called REx 85 the US government created-- it's high-security buildings designed so that they can round up all illegals at a moment's notice and put them in these camps. It's creepy, and sends shivers up my spine-- it sounds far too much like WWII for my taste.

So, yeah... they're trying to escape a harsh government. Makes a lot of sense.

Can you explain your nationalistic tendencies to me, in extreme detail? I'd like to know why you think such harsh restrictions and xenophobia are necessary and acceptable.

Because illegal immigrants are socially, culturally and economic malign. Whilst I do appreciate that immigration is, at times, economically expediant, I refute any advocates of immigration upon grounds of diversity or compassion. Britain was infintely better prior to extra-European immigration, and I defy the will of any who contend otherwise.

Because illegal immigrants are socially, culturally and economic malign. Whilst I do appreciate that immigration is, at times, economically expediant, I refute any advocates of immigration upon grounds of diversity or compassion. Britain was infintely better prior to extra-European immigration, and I defy the will of any who contend otherwise.

Can you give examples of when and why Britain was better without immigration? I am genuinely curious.

Because illegal immigrants are socially, culturally and economic malign. Whilst I do appreciate that immigration is, at times, economically expediant, I refute any advocates of immigration upon grounds of diversity or compassion. Britain was infintely better prior to extra-European immigration, and I defy the will of any who contend otherwise.

you mean you want to go back to 30,000 BCE? you know they lived in caves then right?

Can you explain your nationalistic tendencies to me, in extreme detail? I'd like to know why you think such harsh restrictions and xenophobia are necessary and acceptable.

It's based in racism, not reason.

It's based in racism, not reason.

hmm..... very original.

Has it ever occurred to you that I prefer what might be considered pre-immigration British culture to anything else, and hence dislike anything that threatens it?

you mean you want to go back to 30,000 BCE? you know they lived in caves then right?

You know full what, and when, I mean.

wow im glad we dont have sucky rules on immigration like mexico does.

Because illegal immigrants are socially, culturally and economic malign. Whilst I do appreciate that immigration is, at times, economically expediant, I refute any advocates of immigration upon grounds of diversity or compassion. Britain was infintely better prior to extra-European immigration, and I defy the will of any who contend otherwise.

Care to explain how they are malign in those catagories? Also, do you ignore the historical facts that point to the vast majority of the British peoples being descendant of German tribes that emigrated to the British Isles at some point around(and I've probably got the year range way off) 700 A.D? Or the French invasion in 1066 that changed the English language into something far closer to today's language than the one before? Can you point to anything that shows immigration to be overwhelmingly bad at all?

Pyotr: Maybe, but I'd like to give him the chance to honestly explain his line of thinking to me first, though partially for the sake of curiosity.

hmm..... very original.

Has it ever occurred to you that I prefer what might be considered pre-immigration British culture to anything else, and hence dislike anything that threatens it?

Wasn't Britain empty before we immigrated from Africa?

You know full what, and when, I mean.

yes, those evil brown people with their funny religions and accents and their universal lazy attitude.

hmm..... very original.

Has it ever occurred to you that I prefer what might be considered pre-immigration British culture to anything else, and hence dislike anything that threatens it?

Remember when you said you'd leave Britain if a black man was elected Prime Minister? And then tried to hid behind UKIP, who has black politicians?

yes, those evil brown people with their funny religions and accents and their universal lazy attitude.

I concede most immigrants from the 1960's and 1970's have worked bloody hard, and have fully vindicated the use of them as economic expediants. However, I dispute that argument that the cultural diversity they bring is beneficial, since we now stand as fractured culture, with isolated communities of asian muslims, asian hindus, afro-carribeans and eastern europeans, all of whom contribute nothing to Britain socially.

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.


Harsh, you say?...

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of



"MEXICO!"

Unless I'm much mistaken, this isn't that different from the US... foreigners can't vote (unless they become citizens, at least - I'm not sure about their status then), even 'permanent residents' can't claim support (welfare, foodstamps, healthcare), can never achieve some political offices, can be arrested for their status if illegal... etc

I've searched with Google for a reputable source for this, and all I find are right-wing blogs and forum posts that seem to perpetuate and never substantiate this meme, which was by the way plagiarised verbatim by Congo--Kinshasa, making the OP nothing but copy&paste spam.

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.


Harsh, you say?...

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of



"MEXICO!"

Whoever mades these laws should be thrown down a well.

. However, I dispute that argument that the cultural diversity they bring is beneficial, since we now stand as fractured culture, with isolated communities of asian muslims, asian hindus, afro-carribeans and eastern europeans, all of whom contribute nothing to Britain socially.

I have never been as shocked to read such Guff as I did in this post. Sure large communities remain but so do the large and growing middle classes, whom are intgrating quite nicely.

As for the culture and sociey, I again could not disagree more. I am very happy for the variety of people that it has brought to the islands, not just for the basics like food, but the people themselves, some real charectures rather than some of the oldie english brigade who I find to be tiresome. I enjoyed chinesse new year, all the Indian festivals amosts others. But also these people bring new perspectives which is always good rather than ramming a culture down one avenue.

Maybe the culture they bring does not come to you, but maybe you have to go to them.

I've searched with Google for a reputable source for this, and all I find are right-wing blogs and forum posts that seem to perpetuate and never substantiate this meme, which was by the way plagiarised verbatim by Congo--Kinshasa, making the OP nothing but copy&paste spam.

And that's extremely odd...Congo never does anything like this. Why would he? Sure, he may be a libertarian, but he's not a right-winged nutso libertarian.

I have never been as shocked to read such Guff as I did in this post. Sure large communities remain but so do the large and growing middle classes, whom are intgrating quite nicely.

As for the culture and sociey, I again could not disagree more. I am very happy for the variety of people that it has brought to the islands, not just for the basics like food, but the people themselves, some real charectures rather than some of the oldie english brigade who I find to be tiresome. I enjoyed chinesse new year, all the Indian festivals amosts others. But also these people bring new perspectives which is always good rather than ramming a culture down one avenue.

Maybe the culture they bring does not come to you, but maybe you have to go to them.

Quick point; why should I, or the "oldie English brigade", compromise our principles for those who are artificially inserted into our country? What compels me to do so?

Quick point; why should I, or the "oldie English brigade", compromise our principles for those who are artificially inserted into our country? What compels me to do so?

But what priciples do you speak of? I hear this phrase quite often. The world is changing, migration is not suddenly going to reverse. By coplaining about the muslim communities shutting themselves off are you not being a hypocrite by shutting yourself from other communities?

Points 1-7 raised by C.K. do not apply to Germany, Cabra.

Points 4-7, I agree. But unless things have nchanged drastically without me noticing, there are no multilingual ballots and government business (if you're lucky you can bring a translator), non-citizens can't vote and cannot be elected.

But what priciples do you speak of? I hear this phrase quite often. The world is changing, migration is not suddenly going to reverse. By coplaining about the muslim communities shutting themselves off are you not being a hypocrite by shutting yourself from other communities?

Not in the slightest, because, like it or not, the "oldie English Brigade" are entrenched in English history. We are the result of centuries of history, and are a majority who are quite happy living in isolation from the rest of the world, hence why should be suborned to the evidence of failed experiments with multiculturalism?

Equally, you reckon immigration couldn't be reversed? I daresay a decent armed force and a decent amount of spine and pertinacity could achieve it.

Quick point; why should I, or the "oldie English brigade", compromise our principles for those who are artificially inserted into our country? What compels me to do so?

Humans have always migrated. It's a bit far-fetched to call that "artificial".
And what principles are you talking about? Tea, fox hunting and driving on the left side of the road?

Quick point; why should I, or the "oldie English brigade", compromise our principles for those who are artificially inserted into our country? What compels me to do so?

Conversely, as an Englishman that embraces and delights in our multiculturalism, as well as our delicious mongel history... why should I be deprived of diversity by xenophobia?

You must be aware that just about everything that is 'British' was 'artifically inserted' at some point? Ours is a people built from millenia of diverse and displaced peoples.

Not in the slightest, because, like it or not, the "oldie English Brigade" are entrenched in English history. We are the result of centuries of history, and are a majority who are quite happy living in isolation from the rest of the world, hence why should be suborned to the evidence of failed experiments with multiculturalism?

Equally, you reckon immigration couldn't be reversed? I daresay a decent armed force and a decent amount of spine and pertinacity could achieve it.

Erm, you do realise that your country never was isolated? And that throughout its history, there has always been immigration of varying numbers and nationalities?
You are the result of multiculturalism.

Equally, you reckon immigration couldn't be reversed? I daresay a decent armed force and a decent amount of spine and pertinacity could achieve it.

Why you gotta be creepy scary hateful?

Not in the slightest, because, like it or not, the "oldie English Brigade" are entrenched in English history. We are the result of centuries of history, and are a majority who are quite happy living in isolation from the rest of the world, hence why should be suborned to the evidence of failed experiments with multiculturalism?


Isolation? Our isolation from Rome? From the Celtic immigrations? Our isolation from the Vikings? Our isolation from Norman conquests?

We've been an island for all of recorded history - but, we've never been isolated.

Hey, Chris, read this stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles#History

How do you answer that? You are, in fact, the result of multiculturalism. You know, something like multiculturalism only fails when people refuse to try to coorporate as you are. When everyone works together it succeeds beautifully.

Conversely, as an Englishman that embraces and delights in our multiculturalism, as well as our delicious mongel history... why should I be deprived of diversity by xenophobia?

You must be aware that just about everything that is 'British' was 'artifically inserted' at some point? Ours is a people built from millenia of diverse and displaced peoples.

Because, not only are the "xenophobes" a majority, but such a principle would have precluded the mutlicultural latrine that now constitutes British society.

In any case, please do not employ the same, tired argument reharding "oh, there's always been diversity". The point is, in essence, that prior to post-1945 immigration, a form of British society had been relatively stable and defined for decades, only to be shattered by extra-European immigration. Equally, should we repeat history perpetually? Does the presence of immigration and incremental diversity in our history oblige us to continue said theme? If so, I'm getting my copy of "Malleus Maleficarum", my black robes, and burning some witches.

Harsh, you say?...

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of



"MEXICO!"

Yawn.

Not impressive. (http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/fallacies/tuquoque.asp)

Not in the slightest, because, like it or not, the "oldie English Brigade" are entrenched in English history. We are the result of centuries of history, and are a majority who are quite happy living in isolation from the rest of the world, hence why should be suborned to the evidence of failed experiments with multiculturalism?

Equally, you reckon immigration couldn't be reversed? I daresay a decent armed force and a decent amount of spine and pertinacity could achieve it.

But the UK has never in history been isolated. If the olde English Brigade liked isolation so much would the British Empire have been formed? Migration has happened all throughout history. No one is truly English or truly french or whatever.
Multiculturalism isn't a failed experiment. It is one of the best acheivements in human history.

Erm, you do realise that your country never was isolated? And that throughout its history, there has always been immigration of varying numbers and nationalities?
You are the result of multiculturalism.

Not, as I repeat ad infinatum, from outside Europe, which is more the point.

hmm..... very original.

Has it ever occurred to you that I prefer what might be considered pre-immigration British culture to anything else, and hence dislike anything that threatens it?

Wait, wait... You are SEVENTEEN! Where you even alive to remember, or even experience "pre-immigration British culture" at all!?! I call bullshit on this one. It reeks of that idiotic "Good ol' Days" mentality we have the states were people bitch and moan about how things aren't like they used to be.

hmm..... very original.

Has it ever occurred to you that I prefer what might be considered pre-immigration British culture to anything else, and hence dislike anything that threatens it?

Has it ever occurred to you that you've already admitted to your racism? That you can't un-admit it by dodging questions and spewing trite turns of phrases meant, in a thoroughly MTAE manner, to impress, bewilder, beguile? Well, don't worry. Your little nation had it's time in the sun, and you're bitter because the evil "multiculturalists" are surpassing you in greatness. Tough titties. You'll probably get over this phase in your life once you realize you're longing nostalgiacally for a time you never even experienced.

Because, not only are the "xenophobes" a majority, but such a principle would have precluded the mutlicultural latrine that now constitutes British society.

In any case, please do not employ the same, tired argument reharding "oh, there's always been diversity". The point is, in essence, that prior to post-1945 immigration, a form of British society had been relatively stable and defined for decades, only to be shattered by extra-European immigration. Equally, should we repeat history perpetually? Does the presence of immigration and incremental diversity in our history oblige us to continue said theme? If so, I'm getting my copy of "Malleus Maleficarum", my black robes, and burning some witches.

Sooo.... that "old order" you keep referring to basically means a few decades pre-1945?
What was so great about them? Apart from two world wars in that time period, obviously?

But the UK has never in history been isolated. If the olde English Brigade liked isolation so much would the British Empire have been formed? Migration has happened all throughout history. No one is truly English or truly french or whatever.
Multiculturalism isn't a failed experiment. It is one of the best acheivements in human history.

Oh indeed. Hence why the states of western Europe are fractured societies, with ghettoes of ethnic communities and embittered multitudes of natives.

Not, as I repeat ad infinatum, from outside Europe, which is more the point.

Where's the difference? :confused:

I've searched with Google for a reputable source for this, and all I find are right-wing blogs and forum posts that seem to perpetuate and never substantiate this meme, which was by the way plagiarised verbatim by Congo--Kinshasa, making the OP nothing but copy&paste spam.

I love how Fass completely destroys the entire thread and its purpose and no one even notices.

Has it ever occurred to you that you've already admitted to your racism? That you can't un-admit it by dodging questions and spewing trite turns of phrases meant, in a thoroughly MTAE manner, to impress, bewilder, beguile? Well, don't worry. Your little nation had it's time in the sun, and you're bitter because the evil "multiculturalists" are surpassing you in greatness. Tough titties. You'll probably get over this phase in your life once you realize you're longing nostalgiacally for a time you never even experienced.

Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck. My life's actually pretty damn good, and I don't deal with the results of immigration fist hand, except when visiting London and other such delightful places, wherein I see a fractured society with mutually loathing ethnic groups.

Oh indeed. Hence why the states of western Europe are fractured societies, with ghettoes of ethnic communities and embittered multitudes of natives.

Oh, now I get it.
You dream of getting back to those days when society was fractured into different classes, rather than different ethnicities. Ah, yes, those were the days... when people in small towns would build wall right across their street because they feared that those dirty working-class people might get too close and they need to defend their little middle-class haven.

Where's the difference? :confused:

European immigrants intergrate, extra-European ones, as a rule of thumb, don't.

Oh, now I get it.
You dream of getting back to those days when society was fractured into different classes, rather than different ethnicities. Ah, yes, those were the days... when people in small towns would build wall right across their street because they feared that those dirty working-class people might get too close and they need to defend their little middle-class haven.

So the class system is now absent? Inspired axiom.

Everybody is the same economic class, and possesses the same means? Strangely, I think not.

Where's the difference? :confused:

Skin colour.

Because, not only are the "xenophobes" a majority, but such a principle would have precluded the mutlicultural latrine that now constitutes British society.

In any case, please do not employ the same, tired argument reharding "oh, there's always been diversity". The point is, in essence, that prior to post-1945 immigration, a form of British society had been relatively stable and defined for decades, only to be shattered by extra-European immigration. Equally, should we repeat history perpetually? Does the presence of immigration and incremental diversity in our history oblige us to continue said theme? If so, I'm getting my copy of "Malleus Maleficarum", my black robes, and burning some witches.
Oh Scarecrow! Someone's using you for an argument again!

Your arguments are nothing more than racism and folly. The only thing causing multiculturalism to fail are people like you. With your inability to cooporate with other people and cultures you disrupt every experiment in multiculturalism then you proceed to blame the problem on those "evil" foreigners.

I beg to question what makes your culture so fantastic anyway. In fact, why don't you tell us just what about your culture is so great. You constantly harp on about it being great but never tell us what it is.

So the class system is now absent? Inspired axiom.

Everybody is the same economic class, and possesses the same means? Strangely, I think not.

Straw man.

Oh Scarecrow! Someone's using you for an argument again!

Your arguments are nothing more than racism and folly. The only thing causing multiculturalism to fail are people like you. With your inability to cooporate with other people and cultures you disrupt every experiment in multiculturalism then you proceed to blame the problem on those "evil" foreigners.

I beg to question what makes your culture so fantastic anyway. In fact, why don't you tell us just what about your culture is so great. You constantly harp on about it being great but never tell us what it is.

Why, I ask you, should I compromise my principles and my culture to accomodate anything that would reduce its lustre?

Not, as I repeat ad infinatum, from outside Europe, which is more the point.

Timeline Of Immigration (http://www.cre.gov.uk/diversity/migrationtimeline.html)

This is a timeline estimating the ariival of differnet groups into |Britain. Here arew a few points:

1510 - The first Roma Gypsies arrive in Britain from southern and Ireland and eastern Europe (although it is believed that most Roma originate from the Punjab region of south Asia). Many make a living as tinkers, pedlars and horse dealers.

1650 - Lascars (seamen from south east Asia and India) and sailors from China and West Africa find themselves in demand as Britain's trading empire and financial muscle increases. This is in spite of the 1660 Navigation Act, which requires 75 per cent of a British ship's crew to be British. Many eventually settle permanently, laying the foundations for the modern-day Chinese communities in Liverpool and London

Those are 2 instances in British history where migration from outside Europe occured.

So the class system is now absent? Inspired axiom.

Everybody is the same economic class, and possesses the same means? Strangely, I think not.

It's been a while since I heard about people building walls to keep out the working class...

Straw man.

Answer the point. Attacking presuppositions of an argument is a perfectly acceptable analytical tool.

Alternatively, just throw the term "strawman" about like confetti.

Timeline Of Immigration (http://www.cre.gov.uk/diversity/migrationtimeline.html)

This is a timeline estimating the ariival of differnet groups into |Britain. Here arew a few points:

1510 - The first Roma Gypsies arrive in Britain from southern and Ireland and eastern Europe (although it is believed that most Roma originate from the Punjab region of south Asia). Many make a living as tinkers, pedlars and horse dealers.

1650 - Lascars (seamen from south east Asia and India) and sailors from China and West Africa find themselves in demand as Britain's trading empire and financial muscle increases. This is in spite of the 1660 Navigation Act, which requires 75 per cent of a British ship's crew to be British. Many eventually settle permanently, laying the foundations for the modern-day Chinese communities in Liverpool and London

Those are 2 instances in British history where migration from outside Europe occured.

I sincerely doubt they were either met with any great love, or were present in numbers counting millions.

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.

This is what our immigration laws should say. Especially numbers 1, 4, 7, and 8.

Why, I ask you, should I compromise my principles and my culture to accomodate anything that would reduce its lustre?

What lustre? You never describe it, only defend it from "impurities."

You are nothing better than a white who is proud of a undefinable 'great' "heritage." It is racism hiding behind so-called pride.

It's been a while since I heard about people building walls to keep out the working class...

The class system may not be so manifest, however, only the sodding stupid believe it to be absent.

European immigrants intergrate, extra-European ones, as a rule of thumb, don't.

Ah. I've got to tell that to my friends here, then. I would never have suspected that none of them have integrated, what with them all speaking English and living normal lives....

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.


Harsh, you say?...
No, I didn't say. And I won't. Except for #7 there isn't much to shout about as far as I see - based solely on your post which admittedly is rather lacking in details, of course.

So... A great big "So what?" from me.

What lustre? You never describe it, only defend it from "impurities."

You are nothing better than a white who is proud of a undefinable 'great' "heritage." It is racism hiding behind so-called pride.

It's lustre? I concede, culture is ill defined, however, I am bloody proud of my heritage. We conquered a quarter of the world, and are now conquered in turn, excpet at the behest of our government.

Ah. I've got to tell that to my friends here, then. I would never have suspected that none of them have integrated, what with them all speaking English and living normal lives....

I can only speak from what I find. Ireland is, I agree, a happy exception to what blights most of Europe.

The class system may not be so manifest, however, only the sodding stupid believe it to be absent.

Never said it was absent. I'm just saying that all the exclusion and distrust people like you would pour into class distinctions are now being poured into ethnic distinctions. You're just a sad, hateful person following the current trends, nothing more.

Why, I ask you, should I compromise my principles and my culture to accomodate anything that would reduce its lustre?

What is your culture, Chris? Describe it to us. Inform us of its delights. Explain to us why it is so pure and lovely. I'm completely serious. You keep claiming its beautiful. So tell us what it is.

It's lustre? I concede, culture is ill defined, however, I am bloody proud of my heritage. We conquered a quarter of the world, and are now conquered in turn, excpet at the behest of our government.

Yeah we didn't fight a war against Nazism just to let a bunch of foreigners into the country. :rolleyes:

I sincerely doubt they were either met with any great love, or were present in numbers counting millions.

The population of the UK was just reaching its millions at the time. And you're 17. What would you know of what life was truly like before 1989? The information you get are from books or filmswhich only give a small impression.

Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck.

Good. It's nice to see an unashamed racist.

But if you don't give a fuck, why do you dodge, evade, and seem to slither away from charges of racism? Charges which very naturally explain your entire viewpoint.

I think you ARE ashamed. And you should be. Racism is an annoying, destructive, ignorant force which places you more in common with the fucking nazis than the dead Brits who you try so hard to worship and emulate, and fail.

My life's actually pretty damn good, and I don't deal with the results of immigration fist hand, except when visiting London and other such delightful places, wherein I see a fractured society with mutually loathing ethnic groups.

I don't give a flying fuck.

Answer the point. Attacking presuppositions of an argument is a perfectly acceptable analytical tool.

You dream of getting back to those days when society was fractured into different classes, rather than different ethnicities. Ah, yes, those were the days... when people in small towns would build wall right across their street because they feared that those dirty working-class people might get too close and they need to defend their little middle-class haven.

Alright then, Cabra stated that you desired to go back to the time where society was fractured into different class distinctions, which were societally and physically separated. You said that her argument was that everyone was in the same economic class with the same means, which is a gross misrepresentation of her argument, which is a straw man.

The blessed Chris, excluding immigrants destroys any credibility you have. You clearly believe your 'olde English' society to be superior to others. However, you deny the ability to be part of it to foreigners. Do you mean to say that only people born into it can be part of your 'wonderful' country? That one can only be a member of it if he's lucky enough to have the right parents? Or is the point moot because everybody knows that those with slanted eyes can't appreciate true society?

Good. It's nice to see an unashamed racist.

But if you don't give a fuck, why do you dodge, evade, and seem to slither away from charges of racism? Charges which very naturally explain your entire viewpoint.

I think you ARE ashamed. And you should be. Racism is an annoying, destructive, ignorant force which places you more in common with the fucking nazis than the dead Brits who you try so hard to worship and emulate, and fail.



I don't give a flying fuck.


I dislike cultures, not races.

The blessed Chris, excluding immigrants destroys any credibility you have. You clearly believe your 'olde English' society to be superior to others. However, you deny the ability to be part of it to foreigners. Do you mean to say that only people born into it can be part of your 'wonderful' country? That one can only be a member of it if he's lucky enough to have the right parents? Or is the point moot because everybody knows that those with slanted eyes can't appreciate true society?

Because, immigration invariably alters that which it touches, hence, why allow it to occur?

I can only speak from what I find. Ireland is, I agree, a happy exception to what blights most of Europe.

Well, a good number of my friends are Germans of Turkish descent... but whatever you say. You seem to consider yourself quite an authority on the lifes of other people.

Alright then, Cabra stated that you desired to go back to the time where society was fractured into different class distinctions, which were societally and physically separated. You said that her argument was that everyone was in the same economic class with the same means, which is a gross misrepresentation of her argument, which is a straw man.

No its not. She implied as much, through suggesting that the class structure ahd been suppnated by and ethnically fractious society.

Well, a good number of my friends are Germans of Turkish descent... but whatever you say. You seem to consider yourself quite an authority on the lifes of other people.

MY bloody point. Ireland deals with immigration better than Britain does.

The population of the UK was just reaching its millions at the time. And you're 17. What would you know of what life was truly like before 1989? The information you get are from books or filmswhich only give a small impression.

So therefore history is an inherently flawed art that can never reach the truth?

Because, immigration invariably alters that which it touches, hence, why allow it to occur?

Wait a sec... are you the one complaining that Europe's stagnating in the other thread? And now you're argueing for the stagnation of British culture??? :confused:

MY bloody point. Ireland deals with immigration better than Britain does.

I was talking about Germany. And Ireland doesn't "deal" with immigration at all. It's just letting it happen and seems curious to see what it'll turn out like.

I love how Fass completely destroys the entire thread and its purpose and no one even notices.

Welcome to NS General. ;)

I dislike cultures, not races.

Oh, yes. Classic line from ashamed, cowardly PC racists. "I don't hate black people. I just hate black culture!"

I wonder if you actually fool anyone besides yourself with that kind of nonsense. Let me know if anyone believes you, other than your mother.

I dislike cultures, not races.

Then I doubt you have even experienced the cultures you profess to hate. You are seventeen. I think I can assume you are not yet well travelled enough to have experienced very many cultures beside's your own. You are hateful because you are ignorant.

Wait a sec... are you the one complaining that Europe's stagnating in the other thread? And now you're argueing for the stagnation of British culture??? :confused:

Meh, check his sig, he's probably drunk. On the upside, he's at least guaranteed to be right in one thread.

So therefore history is an inherently flawed art that can never reach the truth?
With 100% accuracy, no, it can't.
Welcome to NS General. ;)

We could have ended the thread there, but now we get to play with Chris. Though you still get this (http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg).

Welcome to NS General. ;)

Pfft! As if this thread had a purpose.

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.


Harsh, you say?...

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of



"MEXICO!"

Lets give them a taste of their own medicine. This reminds me of the story in the Bible where a guy asked for mercy because he couldn't pay his debt but then he ended up beating up his servant who owed him money which then resulted in the guy himself being beaten up by the official he asked mercy from because the official gave him mercy yet he didn't show any to his servant.

Mexico gets to treat immigrants like that yet they get to pull crap off that is illegal in their own country when they immigrate to the US.

It's lustre? I concede, culture is ill defined, however, I am bloody proud of my heritage. We conquered a quarter of the world, and are now conquered in turn, excpet at the behest of our government.


You seem to think you're better than everyone else just because of what some people born on the same island as you did? And moreover, you're proud of them attacking and colonizing other nations without provocation, denying basic rights to the people of those colonies, and forcing others to adopt their "culture" agains their will?

No its not. She implied as much, through suggesting that the class structure ahd been suppnated by and ethnically fractious society.

No. I implied that 50 years ago, British society was just as fractured as it is today, but back then the divides were about social status.
It's still fractured today, but the divides are now more about ethnicity than about money.
The class structures still exist, but they are nowhere near as hysterically guarded as they used to be.

Because, immigration invariably alters that which it touches, hence, why allow it to occur?

Please stop dodging the point, you're disallowing people from gaining the "benefits" of your culture based purely on where they were born.

...aiyaa...

CHRIS!

What is your culture?! Describe it to us so we can know what it is! Stop avoiding the question, damn it.

Mexico gets to treat immigrants like that yet they get to pull crap off that is illegal in their own country when they immigrate to the US.
"Mexico" =/= people born within the lines on the map that make Mexico

Lets give them a taste of their own medicine. This reminds me of the story in the Bible where a guy asked for mercy because he couldn't pay his debt but then he ended up beating up his servant who owed him money which then resulted in the guy himself being beaten up by the official he asked mercy from because the official gave him mercy yet he didn't show any to his servant.

Mexico gets to treat immigrants like that yet they get to pull crap off that is illegal in their own country when they immigrate to the US.
does mexico actually ENFORCE these laws? or are they for show?

...aiyaa...

CHRIS!

What is your culture?! Describe it to us so we can know what it is! Stop avoiding the question, damn it.

Seconded. What exactly are you trying to protect?

Seconded. What exactly are you trying to protect?
chris-tianity?

does mexico actually ENFORCE these laws? or are they for show?

We've already concluded that these are not actual Mexican policies.

Lets give them a taste of their own medicine.

Sorry, you'd only be giving US a taste of their own medicine.

You really want to become more like Mexico? You want our economy in the shitter? You want our people desperate to leave? You want more corruption and graft? More crime? Less people?

Well, maybe you do. But I don't. I happen to LIKE the United States.


Mexico gets to treat immigrants like that yet they get to pull crap off that is illegal in their own country when they immigrate to the US.

Yeah, they "get" to, because they are a sovereign nation of which you are not a member.

Lets give them a taste of their own medicine. This reminds me of the story in the Bible where a guy asked for mercy because he couldn't pay his debt but then he ended up beating up his servant who owed him money which then resulted in the guy himself being beaten up by the official he asked mercy from because the official gave him mercy yet he didn't show any to his servant.

Mexico gets to treat immigrants like that yet they get to pull crap off that is illegal in their own country when they immigrate to the US.

So you're going to punish all Mexicans for what their government did? " East Berlin kills immigrants from Western Berlin, so now let's kill Eastern Berliners who are trying to escape that same oppressive government that killed the Western Berlinders!" Please write this down, you seem to have trouble remembering: YOU DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHERE YOU WERE BORN!

We've already concluded that these are not actual Mexican policies.
ah, suddenly this all makes sense.

We've already concluded that these are not actual Mexican policies.

Not quite. We've concluded that at least I am unable to find anything to corroborate the OP's plagiarised claims. It's different, but still damning so far.

We've already concluded that these are not actual Mexican policies.

...or at least distorted versions of actual policies.


Immigrant Permits are issued to foreign nationals who have the intention of gaining permanent residency in Mexico. Under immigrant schemes, you are permitted to reside in the country, provided that you fulfil certain criteria (as specified by the type of permit) for a period of up to one year.

The permit must be renewed annually for a further four years in order for you to be able to apply for full residency status. If you wish to remain in Mexico as a "resident alien" after five years, you must apply for full residency status (there is a specific procedure to follow), and have this accepted. Once your application has been accepted and your "FM2" has been issued (see below) you are entitled to full rights and responsibilities as any other Mexican Citizen, with the exception of the right to vote.

Upon receiving this status, you will receive a document that looks like a Mexican Passport (called a "FM2") -- newer versions look like a driver's license -- which enables you pass through Mexico's borders as if you were a Mexican National. You do not need to surrender your national passport, which you'll use when you return to your home country: either for visits, or when returning home to dwell. If you stay outside of Mexico for longer than 2 years, or for 5 years in any 10 year period, you will lose your resident status in Mexico.

Listed below are the kinds of people who can apply for Immigrant Permits, with a view to taking up permanent residency in Mexico:

[...]

Investors

You can receive an immigration permit if you are willing to invest your capital in Mexico. You investment can be directed at industry or services, and must equal a minimum of 26,000 times the minimum daily wage in Mexico City*.
What Google gave me (http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm)

Lets give them a taste of their own medicine. This reminds me of the story in the Bible where a guy asked for mercy because he couldn't pay his debt but then he ended up beating up his servant who owed him money which then resulted in the guy himself being beaten up by the official he asked mercy from because the official gave him mercy yet he didn't show any to his servant.

Mexico gets to treat immigrants like that yet they get to pull crap off that is illegal in their own country when they immigrate to the US.

So your argument is that because the mexican policy is wrong (ignoring, for some reason, that it is irrelevant, as people emigrate from mexico a whole lot more than they immigrate) we should adopt it, to "teach them a lesson?"

I don't think it is sane or ethical to do things because you think they are wrong.

Points 4-7, I agree. But unless things have nchanged drastically without me noticing, there are no multilingual ballots and government business (if you're lucky you can bring a translator), non-citizens can't vote and cannot be elected.
Maybe not multilingual ballots, but some of the paperwork is available in different languages. (If I'm not completely mistaken about this!)
Then, talking about elections and running for office - wasn't there talk about letting those with a Aufenthaltserlaubnis vote in regional politics like city parliament? Didn't that go through?!?
And can't you run for office on the regional level as well?
Or was that lowering the age?!?

Maybe I don't remember this right - there is, however, a difference when it comes to European citizens, no? (They're still foreigners?)

I'm confused now.

Unless I'm much mistaken, this isn't that different from the US... foreigners can't vote (unless they become citizens, at least - I'm not sure about their status then), even 'permanent residents' can't claim support (welfare, foodstamps, healthcare), can never achieve some political offices, can be arrested for their status if illegal... etc

You are mistaken, about a great many things.

Yes, only citizens can vote. I think you will find thats a fairly common restriction ;)

The US does not have varying types of citizenship - the one and only difference being that you must have been born in the US to become president. That is the one and only office a foreign born person is unable to hold.

Assistance is given to everyone. Everyone. Employees are strictly forbidden from asking about a persons legal status before granting food stamps or emergency relief. Healthcare is never denied to anyone for any reason.

Police do not arrest anyone for their immigration status - only Immigration and Naturalization officials can hold someone based on immigration status. If arrested for something else, INS can ask the detention center to hold them for a little while, but thats it. Even then, if lacking any criminal behavior to hold them, the person is likely to be released but asked to show up for a court hearing about their status ("do you promise you're going to show up in a couple months so we can ask a judge to deport you?"). Even illegals have to have committed a crime to be arrested.

Because, not only are the "xenophobes" a majority, but such a principle would have precluded the mutlicultural latrine that now constitutes British society.

In any case, please do not employ the same, tired argument reharding "oh, there's always been diversity". The point is, in essence, that prior to post-1945 immigration, a form of British society had been relatively stable and defined for decades, only to be shattered by extra-European immigration. Equally, should we repeat history perpetually? Does the presence of immigration and incremental diversity in our history oblige us to continue said theme? If so, I'm getting my copy of "Malleus Maleficarum", my black robes, and burning some witches.

I'm not convinced xenophobes are the majority... not in any uniform way. Oh - I knew racists who hated blacks.. but they were fine with the curry house or a Chinese after the pub.

I question your pre-1945 reality. The only real difference is that 'foreigners' came to the UK as part of a family, rather than bringing their own in the centuries you call 'stable'. Also - anyone who has ever spent even a few minutes studying 1800's history knows better than to declare that period 'stable.

Maybe you think non-European immigration is new? Perhaps you aren't aware of the immigration from India or China that happened more than a century ago? Perhaps you don't appreciate the immigration of Africans? Or - do those things not count because Empire made slaves of them all?

Yes, only citizens can vote. I think you will find thats a fairly common restriction ;)
Just to correct this, non-citizens cannot vote in Federal elections. State and local elections can let non-citizen vote if they met certain requirements.

However, a lot of state and local laws have been written restricting voting to US citizens only, but there's no actual federal law against it.

Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck. My life's actually pretty damn good, and I don't deal with the results of immigration fist hand, except when visiting London and other such delightful places, wherein I see a fractured society with mutually loathing ethnic groups.

I lived in London. I didn't see the London you claim exists. I suspect it might exist more 'behind the eyes' than before them.

Similarly, I lived in Leicester the year it became majority 'non-white'. There have been some little troubles, but - by and large - Leicester is a slightly grotty version of the perfect multiculture paradigm.

Why, I ask you, should I compromise my principles and my culture to accomodate anything that would reduce its lustre?

Becuase 'they' are not 'yours'. They are 'ours'... and we got them from the diverse generations that went before us.

I sincerely doubt they were either met with any great love, or were present in numbers counting millions.

Considering the population of the UK has only recently reached the point where any sub-set of the population could be numbered in millions, that part of the comment is throwaway at best.

The other part... well, down our way, racists are not 'met with any great love'... by your logic, there must be no racists in England... yes?

It's lustre? I concede, culture is ill defined, however, I am bloody proud of my heritage. We conquered a quarter of the world, and are now conquered in turn, excpet at the behest of our government.

Be proud of our heritage. No other nation has made such a great use of drug and arms trafficking, slave trading, smuggling, and 'legitimising' criminal activity.

Be proud of the way we fought peaceful, or unarmed natives. Be proud of the massacres we executed with rifles against wooden weapons. Be proud of our genocides. Be proud of our exportation of religious intolerance. Be proud of our gifts of venereal disease to isolated nations.

Because, immigration invariably alters that which it touches, hence, why allow it to occur?

Breathing alters that which it touches. By your logic, we should outlaw it, immediately!

Probably a wasted point... but, you realise 'alter' isn't necessarily a bad thing, right?

You are mistaken, about a great many things.

Yes, only citizens can vote. I think you will find thats a fairly common restriction ;)

The US does not have varying types of citizenship - the one and only difference being that you must have been born in the US to become president. That is the one and only office a foreign born person is unable to hold.

Assistance is given to everyone. Everyone. Employees are strictly forbidden from asking about a persons legal status before granting food stamps or emergency relief. Healthcare is never denied to anyone for any reason.

Police do not arrest anyone for their immigration status - only Immigration and Naturalization officials can hold someone based on immigration status. If arrested for something else, INS can ask the detention center to hold them for a little while, but thats it. Even then, if lacking any criminal behavior to hold them, the person is likely to be released but asked to show up for a court hearing about their status ("do you promise you're going to show up in a couple months so we can ask a judge to deport you?"). Even illegals have to have committed a crime to be arrested.

You are - quite simply - wrong.

First - because your logic is not logical: "The US does not have varying types of citizenship" and "you must have been born in the US to become president" are eactually mutually exclusive.

I happen to know 'permanent residents' are not granted foodstamps, healthcare assistance, or any other form of welfare - because I am a permanent resident, and have been refused foodstamps, healthcare assistance and any other form of welfare for exactly that reason.

As for the "Police do not arrest anyone for their immigration status" fiasco - that's your strawman - I didn't specify anything about who does it.

I have, however, seen three huge burly armed gorillas in POLICE jackets grab and detain a small Russian girl (maybe 120 lbs?) who had accidentally overstayed her visa period - so I wonder how much of your information is how you think it might be, rather than how it really is?

I happen to know 'permanent residents' are not granted foodstamps, healthcare assistance, or any other form of welfare - because I am a permanent resident, and have been refused foodstamps, healthcare assistance and any other form of welfare for exactly that reason.
I think someone gave you a bad answer (or perhaps your state has rules in place, illegal ones at that). http://www.govbenefits.gov 's questionare notes that being permanent resident does not disqualify you for welfare or other services.

Also USCIS's handout: http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf (P 8 and 46) talking about how residents DO get welfare (some require 5 years of residency within the US).

Foodstamps confirms: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Legislation/2002_farm_bill/farmbill_QA.htm

Sorry, you're in the wrong here.

I have, however, seen three huge burly armed gorillas in POLICE jackets grab and detain a small Russian girl (maybe 120 lbs?) who had accidentally overstayed her visa period - so I wonder how much of your information is how you think it might be, rather than how it really is?
It wouldn't be the city police force. USCIS is still the only folks who are allowed to make arrests based upon immigration status (though IIRC, I think Arizona is trying to get their police certified to do so). However, chances are that USCIS people were just wearing flack jackets that said POLICE on them.

I think someone gave you a bad answer (or perhaps your state has rules in place, illegal ones at that). http://www.govbenefits.gov 's questionare notes that being permanent resident does not disqualify you for welfare or other services.

Also USCIS's handout: http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf (P 8 and 46) talking about how residents DO get welfare (some require 5 years of residency within the US).

Foodstamps confirms: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Legislation/2002_farm_bill/farmbill_QA.htm

Sorry, you're in the wrong here.


Don't be ridiculous.

How can I be in the wrong, when I am detailing first hand experience of how it actually is?

Perhaps Georgia feels less than compelled to honour federal laws. Perhaps the BCIS is Atlanta is corrupt. Perhaps regional offices are ill-informed, or choose to ignore what should be happening.

Or perhaps, what you are describing is smoke and mirrors, and has no substance?

All I know is - for all your sources and their claims of what should happen - it doesn't.

Further - even the things you post contradict... or at least, don't oppose what I said. You say, yourself, that there might be waiting periods - in which case, obviously, there would be time (5 years, you said, right?) where there was no coverage?

Looking at the source you post for foodstamps it lists an array of people who can claim - meaning there are people that can't.

It continues with a peculiar little question near the bottom of the page: "Will receiving food stamps hurt me if I want to become a citizen?

No. Receiving food stamps does not make an immigrant a "public charge" – meaning an immigrant to the United States will not be deported, denied entry to the country, or denied permanent status or a "green card" because he or she receives food stamps.

Obviously, if foodstamps must be explicitly stated as [b]not[/i] making a person a 'public charge' - and therefore, apparently - at risk of being 'deported, denied entry to the country or denied permanent status'... if this particulr benefit must state it is NOT a benefit that meets those criteria... clearly there MUST be other benefits, for which those things are true?


It wouldn't be the city police force. USCIS is still the only folks who are allowed to make arrests based upon immigration status (though IIRC, I think Arizona is trying to get their police certified to do so). However, chances are that USCIS people were just wearing flack jackets that said POLICE on them.

I stil ldidn't say anything about the city police. That is still your pet, not mine. I certainly didn't ask for badges.

The point (still) is that what I said is true - people are detained for their status.

Don't be ridiculous.

How can I be in the wrong, when I am detailing first hand experience of how it actually is?

Perhaps Georgia feels less than compelled to honour federal laws. Perhaps the BCIS is Atlanta is corrupt. Perhaps regional offices are ill-informed, or choose to ignore what should be happening.

Or perhaps, what you are describing is smoke and mirrors, and has no substance?

All I know is - for all your sources and their claims of what should happen - it doesn't.
Or, perhaps, this is YOUR experiance and does not bear on the experiances of other immigrants to the United States, hmm? One person's experiance does not equal N after all. Perhaps Georgia IS ignoring the law, or has other laws in place, at which case it is your right to challenge said laws. However, those ARE the laws and regulations, saying that "It didn't happen to ME so therefore immigrants don't get wellfare" is wrong, and misleading (And yes, that IS what you're stating).

Further - even the things you post contradict... or at least, don't oppose what I said. You say, yourself, that there might be waiting periods - in which case, obviously, there would be time (5 years, you said, right?) where there was no coverage?
Dependant upon your immigration and/or earning status, yes. There IS a waiting time, however this does not invalidate my point that permnate residents can receive wellfare, contradicting your statement to the contrary.

Looking at the source you post for foodstamps it lists an array of people who can claim - meaning there are people that can't.
Yes, because not even US citzens can claim foodstaps if they do not meet certain elligibility requirements. This has no bearing, again, on that fact that immigrants CAN claim benifits (and not just foodstamps).

It continues with a peculiar little question near the bottom of the page: "Will receiving food stamps hurt me if I want to become a citizen?

No. Receiving food stamps does not make an immigrant a "public charge" – meaning an immigrant to the United States will not be deported, denied entry to the country, or denied permanent status or a "green card" because he or she receives food stamps.

Obviously, if foodstamps must be explicitly stated as [b]not[/i] making a person a 'public charge' - and therefore, apparently - at risk of being 'deported, denied entry to the country or denied permanent status'... if this particulr benefit must state it is NOT a benefit that meets those criteria... clearly there MUST be other benefits, for which those things are true?
I think you're making a HUGE leap upon that, unless you can find me something where receiving benefits does disqualify you from getting permanent status. If anything, I belive this has to do with the need for immigrants to the US to have a sponcer or show enough income/assests to show they will not become a public charge. Getting wellfare would, obviously, suggest that the immigrant(s) may be in violation of such statues. I would assume that the FAQ was there to waylay such fears and encourage those who are elligeable to get the help that they need.

I stil ldidn't say anything about the city police. That is still your pet, not mine. I certainly didn't ask for badges.

The point (still) is that what I said is true - people are detained for their status.
I was clarifying the point. Yes, people are detained due to status; however, the people doing the detaining are not the regular police force (or any other federal agency besides USCIS). I said NOTHING about how you were wrong and that people are not detained on immigration violations. So back off jumping down my throat about it.

Or, perhaps, this is YOUR experiance and does not bear on the experiances of other immigrants to the United States, hmm? One person's experiance does not equal N after all. Perhaps Georgia IS ignoring the law, or has other laws in place, at which case it is your right to challenge said laws. However, those ARE the laws and regulations, saying that "It didn't happen to ME so therefore immigrants don't get wellfare" is wrong, and misleading (And yes, that IS what you're stating).


Basic logic check.

The assertion is "immigrants can get welfare".

I am an immigrant. I can't get welfare. (The cited reason is my status as a permanent resident).

Applying logic - is it demonstrated that 'immigrants can get welfare', or is it suggested that that might be less than 100% true?

I'm not saying NO immigrant EVER gets any kind of help. But, it certainly can be shown to be less than universal.


Dependant upon your immigration and/or earning status, yes. There IS a waiting time, however this does not invalidate my point that permnate residents can receive wellfare, contradicting your statement to the contrary.


If there is a waiting time, then there are people who cannot receive welfare, purely because of their status as immigrants.

Again - pure logic.


Yes, because not even US citzens can claim foodstaps if they do not meet certain elligibility requirements. This has no bearing, again, on that fact that immigrants CAN claim benifits (and not just foodstamps).


On the contrary. The fact that ano-other person might have to also jump certain hurdles, does not mean there is no obstacle to the immigrant.


I think you're making a HUGE leap upon that, unless you can find me something where receiving benefits does disqualify you from getting permanent status. If anything, I belive this has to do with the need for immigrants to the US to have a sponcer or show enough income/assests to show they will not become a public charge. Getting wellfare would, obviously, suggest that the immigrant(s) may be in violation of such statues. I would assume that the FAQ was there to waylay such fears and encourage those who are elligeable to get the help that they need.


I am well aware of the requirements for sponsors, etc. You seem to be hitting a logic barrier here - on the one hand you claim that immigrants can get the benefits, on the other you seem aware that it could 'violate statutes'...

I'm not sure how you hold it in your head without resolving it.

Basic logic check.

The assertion is "immigrants can get welfare".

I am an immigrant. I can't get welfare. (The cited reason is my status as a permanent resident).

Applying logic - is it demonstrated that 'immigrants can get welfare', or is it suggested that that might be less than 100% true?

I'm not saying NO immigrant EVER gets any kind of help. But, it certainly can be shown to be less than universal.
Then let us actually check. YOU said: "I happen to know 'permanent residents' are not granted foodstamps, healthcare assistance, or any other form of welfare - because I am a permanent resident, and have been refused foodstamps, healthcare assistance and any other form of welfare for exactly that reason."

That is YOUR experiance and your words. I have shown you to be wrong. I did NOT state that coverage was universal (I actually noted the waiting period), but I was able to provide proof that permanent residents do, indeed, get coverage. Reading further into those documents, I find that if you arrive as a refuge, you can claim such imediately. Again, showing that you are incorrect in your statement that permanent residents do not get coverage.

Basic logic.

If there is a waiting time, then there are people who cannot receive welfare, purely because of their status as immigrants.

Again - pure logic.
See above, your statement was that permanent residents did not receive coverage, I showed that you are incorrect. That is the reality of the statement. Do all get coverage, no, but there are those who do, either through combination of their immigration status, time in the US, or otherwise. Again, this is also refuting your statement.

You need to revise said statement or withdraw it, because that is what I am arguing against.

On the contrary. The fact that ano-other person might have to also jump certain hurdles, does not mean there is no obstacle to the immigrant.
No, but neither does it go that being a US citizen aoutmatically entitles you to them without also having to clear certain barriers as you were suggesting.

I am well aware of the requirements for sponsors, etc. You seem to be hitting a logic barrier here - on the one hand you claim that immigrants can get the benefits, on the other you seem aware that it could 'violate statutes'...

I'm not sure how you hold it in your head without resolving it.
Because I was offering a plausable reason as to why that particular FAQ was included, I made no mention beyond that.

In any case, I have shown that immigrants can and do claim benefits. Do you have something beyond your experiance to show that many do not?

Then let us actually check. YOU said: "I happen to know 'permanent residents' are not granted foodstamps, healthcare assistance, or any other form of welfare - because I am a permanent resident, and have been refused foodstamps, healthcare assistance and any other form of welfare for exactly that reason."

That is YOUR experiance and your words. I have shown you to be wrong.

No - you haven't shown me to be wrong.

You haven't shown, for example that I have been granted foodstamps, healthcare assistance or other forms of wellfare. I wish you could.

If my experience is true, the blanket statement suggesting immigrants can get those things, can be shown (as all blanket statements likely will be) to be less than 100% true.

So - you haven't come close to showing me to be 'wrong'. Not the same ballpark. Not the same sport.

No - you haven't shown me to be wrong.

You haven't shown, for example that I have been granted foodstamps, healthcare assistance or other forms of wellfare. I wish you could.

If my experience is true, the blanket statement suggesting immigrants can get those things, can be shown (as all blanket statements likely will be) to be less than 100% true.

So - you haven't come close to showing me to be 'wrong'. Not the same ballpark. Not the same sport.
And you yell at others about moving the goal posts.

Once more:
I happen to know 'permanent residents' are not granted foodstamps, healthcare assistance, or any other form of welfare - because I am a permanent resident, and have been refused foodstamps, healthcare assistance and any other form of welfare for exactly that reason.(Emphasis mine)

I am not a United States citizen. Can I get food stamps?

You may be eligible now if you are a legal permanent resident and you have been in the United States in qualified status for 5 years. People who came to the United States as refugees and some types of immigrants are eligible right away. You may also be eligible if you are a legal permanent resident, and (1) you are now receiving disability payments or (2) if you, your spouse, or your parents, have a record of working in the United States for 10 years. (The food stamp office will be able to help determine if you have worked the required amount of time.) Starting Oct. 1, 2003, children with qualified status will be eligible as soon as they get this status.
(Again, emphsis mine)

You said permanent residents are NOT granted and I have given you a US government link that says that they ARE granted. So YOUR blanket statement has been shown to be false.

Mine, has been shown to be correct because 5 years from now, assuming you don't leave the US or become a US citizen, you'll still BE a permanent resident.

Yeah, you were not correct in your statement about benefits. Sorry, it happens to the best of us.

*Whistles*

Article 27 (9) I: "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country."
http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html#TitleIChapterI

And you yell at others about moving the goal posts.

Once more:
(Emphasis mine)


(Again, emphsis mine)

You said permanent residents are NOT granted and I have given you a US government link that says that they ARE granted. So YOUR blanket statement has been shown to be false.

Mine, has been shown to be correct because 5 years from now, assuming you don't leave the US or become a US citizen, you'll still BE a permanent resident.

Yeah, you were not correct in your statement about benefits. Sorry, it happens to the best of us.

"Permanent residents' is a blanket term. I know that 'permanent residents' do not receive blah blah, because I have a source I trust implicitly (i.e. me) that tells me that 'permanent residents' do not receive blah blah.

Some might. Hell, most might. But, 'permanent residents' do not.

"Permanent residents' is a blanket term. I know that 'permanent residents' do not receive blah blah, because I have a source I trust implicitly (i.e. me) that tells me that 'permanent residents' do not receive blah blah.

Some might. Hell, most might. But, 'permanent residents' do not.
5 years from now (or however it will take you to get to 5 years in the US) you will be eligible for those benefits. You will still BE a permanent resident (unless you change your status); therefore, yes, permanent residents do indeed get them. You can say "New permanent residents" are not eligible and be mostly correct (assuming they are not children or refugies or other accepted catagories), but making a blanket term like that is not correct.

Futhermore, there are other catagories of aid that you (probably) qualify for.

So, again, your statement is not correct.