[Swamp_Thing]

Lib, why is it that whever someone stands for a political ideal diferent from your own, you always feel like you have to resort to personnal attacks?
I see these guys as vigilantes. Why does that make me a communist nutjob?
This is not about politics, it´s about the Law. And the law does not condone private citizens taking the law into their own hands. It´s that simple. If these guys were serious about helping the authorities, why don´t they choose a more urgent matter, like catching drug dealers selling drugs in schools? Or help preventing corporate fraud? Or help prevent robberies, and homicides? Why don´t they keep an eye on gang bangers, and help prevent a million other crimes?
Why did they feel like preventing a bunch of poor, hungry, and destituted mexicans wanting a better life, will help the US be a safer place? They had a million other more worthy causes to follow, a million other violent offenders to help encarcerate, yet they chose to persecute a bunch of hungry poor people, that the only crime they are guilty of is being born dirt poor and on the wrong side of the border. That says a lot about their motivations.

Why don´t you force your president to hire the 5.000 more border patrolsmen, that the congress agreed to fund? The congress aproved a new budget to allow the hiring of thousands more guards, but Bush refused to hire them. Why?

When did the "give us your poor, your hungry masses" lost its meaning? When did the "give us your poor" started meaning everybody except latin americans? I don´t see people fighting the immigration of canadians, or europeans. It´s like, if you are white and rich, you are welcomed. But if you are poor and black or hispanic or asian, the door is closed...

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Okay, people have been warned.  Anyone else who makes a personal attack in this thread will get monkeyed.

I'll back off. But what the heck does "monkeyed" mean? Unless I don't want to know.......

[EtherShock]

What we need is another Ellis Island. There needs to be a central point of entry, but this would cost money. Also, there isn't an ocean to control where immigrants would come in. We could also promote improving quality of life in other countries.

And please play nice or you know an admin will lock this thread.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
Eh...it was mostly tongue-in-cheek...I apologize if that didn't translate over like I meant it to.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that it is only in recent years that America has taken such a light, "open door" approach to immigration.  I remember reading somewhere that if an imigrant came through Ellis Island and couldn't read or had other qualities that would have made them a liability on society they were put on a ship back where they came from.  

Like so many things that are assumed to be "rights"(voting for instance), there are a great many responsibilities that go along with them.  Part of the responsibility of those who wish to come to live in this country as a citizen is that they do so according to the law, and to treat those that do not any differently is a kick in the nuts to every person in this country that is currently, or is decended from immigrants(ie almost everyone).

Does that not fly in the face of the G'ive me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" idealism of early America, though?

I mean, as rich nations we (and by that I mean the likes of the UK, USA, Japan, France, Germany, etc) do have, IMO, an international responsibility as free and wealthy nations to help others.  It's an international obligation, IIRC, determined by the UN treaties of which our countries are signatories.  As such, I don't think we can say it's fair to only admit those we consider not to be a 'liability' - by natures, that's what refugees are.

Not that I'm advocating an completely open door policy that would allow anyone to come in (simply because it's not economically feasible to support all those people, especially if they need retraining to work), but I think that all too often immigration is used - in any country - as the easy excuse for why problems occur, because it's an easy method of scapegoatery and diversion.

[pyro-manic]

I'm against 'em. Reason being, if they're so concerned about the immigration problem, and they really wanted to do something about it, they'd actually just join the border patrol. The fact that they're getting tooled up and roving around the desert looking for trouble would suggest to me that they have certain other objectives than merely reporting illegal entries....

[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Does that not fly in the face of the G'ive me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" idealism of early America, though?

I mean, as rich nations we (and by that I mean the likes of the UK, USA, Japan, France, Germany, etc) do have, IMO, an international responsibility as free and wealthy nations to help others.  It's an international obligation, IIRC, determined by the UN treaties of which our countries are signatories.  As such, I don't think we can say it's fair to only admit those we consider not to be a 'liability' - by natures, that's what refugees are.

Not that I'm advocating an completely open door policy that would allow anyone to come in (simply because it's not economically feasible to support all those people, especially if they need retraining to work), but I think that all too often immigration is used - in any country - as the easy excuse for why problems occur, because it's an easy method of scapegoatery and diversion.

I don't think any nation is obliged to support immigration at all, not even morally. If America (or whoever, it stands for any country) wants to simply close it's doors for whatever reason, that's their right. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way to currently maintain the "integrity" of a nation (culture, ethnic groups, language, religions etc) is to be poor enough that no one will want to move there at all. For all the talk of inclusiveness, non-disctrimination and all that, I doubt very many people, regardless of political idealogy, in Western Country X (let's say Britain) would support having a majority population of non-natives. Because, for the time being anyway, we've still got a sense of "national identity" and are loathe to change it. Beind the political correctness, most people I think still find one group of people preferable to another, I know I do, and would rather be in the company of (for example) white, Christian, middle-class folks than any others. I'm sure that Indians would rather be in the company of Indians, Russian in the company of Russians, Dominicans in the company of Dominicans etc.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Does that not fly in the face of the G'ive me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" idealism of early America, though?

I don't recall a time anywhere in American history where that has been a part of public policy.  That is on the Statue of Liberty, IIRC.

That phrase more accurately refers to the "American Dream", which is what causes people to want to come here.  It doesn't refer to imigration policy.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor


I don't think any nation is obliged to support immigration at all, not even morally. If America (or whoever, it stands for any country) wants to simply close it's doors for whatever reason, that's their right. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way to currently maintain the "integrity" of a nation (culture, ethnic groups, language, religions etc) is to be poor enough that no one will want to move there at all. For all the talk of inclusiveness, non-disctrimination and all that, I doubt very many people, regardless of political idealogy, in Western Country X (let's say Britain) would support having a majority population of non-natives. Because, for the time being anyway, we've still got a sense of "national identity" and are loathe to change it. Beind the political correctness, most people I think still find one group of people preferable to another, I know I do, and would rather be in the company of (for example) white, Christian, middle-class folks than any others. I'm sure that Indians would rather be in the company of Indians, Russian in the company of Russians, Dominicans in the company of Dominicans etc.

I believe nations are legally obliged to accept refugees under UN convention, for one thing; but that's a seperate issue from economic migration.  Bear in mind this is simply my opinion, and in certain ways it's a direct, knee-jerk reaction to the pseudo racist attitude towards migration displayed in certain areas of the British tabloid press (in particular).

I don't think I said I supported the idea of 'total' migration, simply because social systems can't handle that.  I just oppose the idea that we should pick and choose who to let in on the basis of how much they can help us, whilst rejecting those who would need our help the most.

(and I realise that's highly idealistic and pretty improbable as a blanket scenario - there are simply too many people for one thing - but I think it's possible to a degree, or at least we should have a desire to do so)

Originally posted by Liberator


I don't recall a time anywhere in American history where that has been a part of public policy.  That is on the Statue of Liberty, IIRC.

That phrase more accurately refers to the "American Dream", which is what causes people to want to come here.  It doesn't refer to imigration policy.

Why do you think I said idealism?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14


I believe nations are legally obliged to accept refugees under UN convention, for one thing; but that's a seperate issue from economic migration.  Bear in mind this is simply my opinion, and in certain ways it's a direct, knee-jerk reaction to the pseudo racist attitude towards migration displayed in certain areas of the British tabloid press (in particular).

I don't think I said I supported the idea of 'total' migration, simply because social systems can't handle that.  I just oppose the idea that we should pick and choose who to let in on the basis of how much they can help us, whilst rejecting those who would need our help the most.

What I'm saying is that it's perfectly reasonable and normal to pick and choose who to let it on the basis of how alike they are to us (whatever the host country may be).

There is certainly an element of rascism in this, but most everyone is rascist to a degree, in that they find certain groups preferable to others. If you're looking for a colour-blind society, I'm afraid we're a ways off. I see no particular reason to deny this, or equate it with the rascism of the KKK and others. Fact is, we still have a strong sense of tribalism, and identification with a tribe (by nationality, colour, religion or whatever) is inevitable.

As for the legal obligations, I am in no way suggesting that people be turned back to face execution. Keep in mind, I am myself an immigrant, living in a country made up largely (say 30%, approx) of immigrants from all over the world. But overall, I think refugees account for a miniority of immigration, here and elsewhere as well.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Originally posted by Kosh




I'll back off. But what the heck does "monkeyed" mean? Unless I don't want to know.......

IIRC, its just another term for temp-banning.

[aldo_14]

Monkeys have their Hard Light forum accesses revoked, but not Gen FS, FS Modding, and soforth.