|
|
Post by Daisy on Jul 30, 2013 1:04:02 GMT
Seriously how can you exclude them because their immigration is greater than theAnglo's in the report I submitted. Today's immigration limitations are predominately targeting Hispanic and Muslim immigration and are not targeting blacks which is what Haitians predominately represent. Why introduce more problems into this country. I realize not all Mexicans are into drugs and not all Muslims are into terrorism, but how do we know without close examination of their credentials? I don't think our immigration laws are too strict if they keep out drugs and terrorists. They don't since the police are constantly fighting drugs and the latest terriorist attack, Boston Marathon bombing. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I say tighten the immigration laws even more. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 30, 2013 11:52:15 GMT
Today's immigration limitations are predominately targeting Hispanic and Muslim immigration and are not targeting blacks which is what Haitians predominately represent. Why introduce more problems into this country. I realize not all Mexicans are into drugs and not all Muslims are into terrorism, but how do we know without close examination of their credentials? I don't think our immigration laws are too strict if they keep out drugs and terrorists. They don't since the police are constantly fighting drugs and the latest terriorist attack, Boston Marathon bombing. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I say tighten the immigration laws even more. The immigration laws do not prevent acts of terrorism or the illegal drug trade. Believing they do, by analogy, would be like saying that reducing the speed limit will prevent bank robberies. Of course when a person applies for legal immigration a background check would be in order. Is the person a former criminal, a suspect in terrorist plots, or a member of a known terrorist organization are certainly issues of concern that could prevent granting of immigration status. As I noted there are reasonable grounds for prohibiting immigration if it can be determined that the person is immigrating for nefarious criminal purposes. It is interesting that the Boston Marathon bombing is mentioned because that would be considered an act of domestic terrorism and not an international act of terrorism. Both of the brothers immigrated here as children with their parents and Dzhokhar was a US citizen. Finally I would note that the illegal drug trade and international acts of terrorism are deserving of their own thread. In a very real sense these are "self-inflicted wounds" caused by US government policies but that is not something that should be addressed here as it would take the subject far away from immigration policies that are unrelated to both. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jul 30, 2013 14:34:17 GMT
Why introduce more problems into this country. I realize not all Mexicans are into drugs and not all Muslims are into terrorism, but how do we know without close examination of their credentials? I don't think our immigration laws are too strict if they keep out drugs and terrorists. They don't since the police are constantly fighting drugs and the latest terriorist attack, Boston Marathon bombing. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I say tighten the immigration laws even more. The immigration laws do not prevent acts of terrorism or the illegal drug trade. Believing they do, by analogy, would be like saying that reducing the speed limit will prevent bank robberies. Of course when a person applies for legal immigration a background check would be in order. Is the person a former criminal, a suspect in terrorist plots, or a member of a known terrorist organization are certainly issues of concern that could prevent granting of immigration status. As I noted there are reasonable grounds for prohibiting immigration if it can be determined that the person is immigrating for nefarious criminal purposes. It is interesting that the Boston Marathon bombing is mentioned because that would be considered an act of domestic terrorism and not an international act of terrorism. Both of the brothers immigrated here as children with their parents and Dzhokhar was a US citizen. Finally I would note that the illegal drug trade and international acts of terrorism are deserving of their own thread. In a very real sense these are "self-inflicted wounds" caused by US government policies but that is not something that should be addressed here as it would take the subject far away from immigration policies that are unrelated to both. But if we did away with immigration laws as you propose, we'd surely make it easy for them to get in here to commit their terrorists acts. We can't have that. We won't have that. |
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Jul 30, 2013 16:49:45 GMT
Why introduce more problems into this country. I realize not all Mexicans are into drugs and not all Muslims are into terrorism, but how do we know without close examination of their credentials? I don't think our immigration laws are too strict if they keep out drugs and terrorists. They don't since the police are constantly fighting drugs and the latest terriorist attack, Boston Marathon bombing. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I say tighten the immigration laws even more. The immigration laws do not prevent acts of terrorism or the illegal drug trade. Believing they do, by analogy, would be like saying that reducing the speed limit will prevent bank robberies. Of course when a person applies for legal immigration a background check would be in order. Is the person a former criminal, a suspect in terrorist plots, or a member of a known terrorist organization are certainly issues of concern that could prevent granting of immigration status. As I noted there are reasonable grounds for prohibiting immigration if it can be determined that the person is immigrating for nefarious criminal purposes. It is interesting that the Boston Marathon bombing is mentioned because that would be considered an act of domestic terrorism and not an international act of terrorism. Both of the brothers immigrated here as children with their parents and Dzhokhar was a US citizen. Finally I would note that the illegal drug trade and international acts of terrorism are deserving of their own thread. In a very real sense these are "self-inflicted wounds" caused by US government policies but that is not something that should be addressed here as it would take the subject far away from immigration policies that are unrelated to both. FYI you introduced Muslims, I am only pointing out an incident of Muslim immigration, the Tsaranevs were Muslim immigrants. Would appear that the immigration laws are not stringent enough. There was no discrimination when those Muslims were allowed to call the US home. |
|
|
|
Post by Brewskier on Jul 31, 2013 4:58:42 GMT
Yeah, America is such a white racist nation that the overwhelming majority of immigrants that have been coming into this country during the last 4 decades have been from non-white countries. America is so racist that the non-Hispanic white population has decreased from 85% to 62% in less than 50 years. That's not enough for some people... we need less white people and more non-white people NOW!
The truth is, America will be better off maintaining its white majority. Point to a Hispanic country or black country that you would want America to resemble. I certainly can't think of any. America stepping off the demographic cliff is one thing, but the issue is that Europe is doing the same thing. Europe will be an Islamic state in the not-too-distant future... then what are whites going to do? Why are white people the only ones who cannot have their own ancestral homeland? Why is it that only whites countries are said to have "race problems" when there are too many white people and not enough minorities? Do they discuss such nonsense in Asia or Africa, or does the world allow those places to keep their racial homogeneity?
|
|
teutorian
Scribbler
Posts: 1 
Politics: National Socialist
|
Post by teutorian on Jul 31, 2013 6:15:19 GMT
This is why, without Ron Paul, libertarianism is finished. I'm starting to wonder if in their political isolation they've taken to theory-crafting how to make man most free without care or concern for any of the realities of the world. You've drifted so far to the libertarian right, you've gone full circle and come within arms reach of the Internationalist Marxist left. What you're advocating would bring about the complete destruction of all national cultures, all nationalities, all races - everything. You're calling for the complete fall of civilization in the name of "freedom" like the Bolshevik aimed to destroy civilization in the name of "equality."  This is Germany - beautiful, magnificent Germany. It is a product of the German people and the German soul. And what would be left of it if libertarian decrees make it is the "right" of tens of millions of Somalians to pour over its borders and make the nation their own? Absolutely nothing. What you're advocating is the destruction of the civilized world. It's naive beyond words at best. If I didn't know your posting record from PF, I'd call it insidious. You may as well just pass out gray communist pajamas for everyone because there will be nothing to distinguish anyone from anyone else. It essentially guarantees the victory of the worst and weakest of this so called humanity. What few who have managed to create beauty, culture, and more or less justify the very existence of mankind, would be overwhelmed and destroyed. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 31, 2013 10:32:48 GMT
But if we did away with immigration laws as you propose, we'd surely make it easy for them to get in here to commit their terrorists acts. We can't have that. We won't have that. Changing the immigration laws to allow individuals to freely immigrate to the United States for legitimate and peaceful reasons would not make it easier for those with nefarious intent to enter the United States. Let's simply address the two issues brought up of international terrorists and drug smugglers. International terrorists historically entered the United States on tourist (or short term visas) and not on permanent immigration visas. A tourist visa is much easier to obtain so why would that change? I person entering the United States to work could reasonably be expected to show proof of employment annually (which would also address their family members). If a terrorist organization really wants to get someone into the United States they can do that and the belief that they can't is really absurd and it doesn't have anything to do with permanent immigration visas. Allowing free immigration for legitimate purposes actually helps in the War On Drugs (that I oppose because the War On Drugs is what creates the problem) because it eliminates illegal border crossings for those seeking employment. In short 99% of the illegal border crossings stop so all it leaves are those that are entering the US for nefarious criminal purposes (e.g. smuggling drugs) and that makes it easier for the Border Patrol to deal with. Of course most drug smuggling isn't across the desert border with Mexico but instead come in through other means right under the noses of the DEA, Customs, and Border Patrol. Allowing free immigration for those wishing to come here for legitimate purposes does not increase drug smuggling or make it any easier or harder for international terrorists to enter the country. This is a myth without any factual foundation. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 31, 2013 10:36:42 GMT
This is why, without Ron Paul, libertarianism is finished. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he's a Republican. Why do so many fail to understand this simple fact? He does hold some "libertarian" political beliefs, perhaps moreso than other Republicans, but all political ideologies also embrace some libertarian political beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 31, 2013 10:44:06 GMT
This is Germany - beautiful, magnificent Germany. It is a product of the German people and the German soul. It is ironic that European castles actually represent the despotic regimes of monarchies that the founders of America rejected when they embraced and defined classic liberalism as a political ideology. Libertarians are the advocates of classic liberalism today. |
|
