Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I kind of like Mexico. We should marry Canada and adopt them.

WarOne wrote:
Hispanics have been coming to America for many years. The influx has not been acute, but a chronic trend that has happened for many decades. If you want to make America a less desireable place to go, then remove what makes people want to come here.

Unfortunately, it is an Iconic Belief of a "Better Life" that draws so many to this country. That is next to impossible to remove. It is what has drawn people to these shores for centuries.

helgrenze wrote:Reading material for you seb....taken from http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/laws/0113.htm

(snip)

Wanna say this law doesnt go after the jobs again? Please, prove me wrong with my own evidence listed here.

Yes, which was already illegal under existing federal law. Which was hardly enforced, and which was the problem. At which point you'll note my position stated earlier in the thread, that if this new law seeks to punish businesses heavily and really has the political will to follow that through, then it's all good. Hopefully the tough measures on suspected illegal immigrants are just a sideshow to that real solution.

Given the political emphasis on the tough on illegals rhetoric, that's a really big 'if'. Given the support and emphasis in this thread for targetting illegals themselves, and the unwillingness to even engage on debate on a demand focussed solution, that's an even bigger 'if'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

focusedfire wrote:

Frazzled wrote:True that, althoguh I'd posit most of the weridos attacking Obama call him a socialist, not a Nazi. Come on redy, get your nutjob slurs correct!

Uh Fraz,..............Could you please post the origin and definition of the term nazi?

It is amazing the lengths that socialist go to in order to obscure the fact that germany from 1933-1945 was a socialist state.

Your understanding of politics is awful, and you refuse to let it get better.

The Nazi party, or National Socialist German Workers' Party had at it's root some elements of socialism. They originally fit a strange place in German politics, aggressively opposed to the Socialists and the Conservatives, taking on a hyper-nationalist stance that placed the German worker as the victim of a range of internal and external factors. Well, that makes it sound somewhat reasonable, truth is they condemned both capitalism and communism as Jewish plots.

The socialist element of the party was united under Gregor Strasser, and argued for mass action to remove the Jewish dominated capitalist system. Their popularity should not be understated.

However, that element of Nazism stopped very dramatically in 1934, when the left wing element of the party, including Strasser, were assassinated by the right wing of the party. From then on the direction of the Nazi party was dedicated absolutely towards deadly suppression of any proponents of left wing politics.

Meanwhile the Nazi party continued to receive the support of the conservative parties of Germany, the first Nazi government was achieved as a coalition with conservative parties - which would be a strange achievement for a socialist party.

If you need any more evidence you only have to consider the original of the term Nazi. The Social Democratic Party of Germany were the Sozis, and as their opponents their opposition were given the name Nazis.

So, seriously, can you please stop with that nonsense once and for all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:The problem is that you'd have to change South American governments. And you know how well that works.

Some places down there it's government of the week.

Woah. 80s flashback.

sebster wrote:Yes, which was already illegal under existing federal law. Which was hardly enforced, and which was the problem. At which point you'll note my position stated earlier in the thread, that if this new law seeks to punish businesses heavily and really has the political will to follow that through, then it's all good. Hopefully the tough measures on suspected illegal immigrants are just a sideshow to that real solution.

Given the political emphasis on the tough on illegals rhetoric, that's a really big 'if'. Given the support and emphasis in this thread for targetting illegals themselves, and the unwillingness to even engage on debate on a demand focussed solution, that's an even bigger 'if'.

A law that is supposed to be enforced by an underfunded, undermanned government department that is ineffective at doing its job, as defined by federal law and its own mandate.
Making Local and State law enforcement more responsible for investigating claims that a company employs illegal immigrants allows for a better chance of the cases getting into the court system and thus making the companies more responsive and accountable.

So you agree that the best measure of addressing the issue will come from focussing on demand, and that successful enforcement depends on a serious commitment to investigate and convict instances of the employment of illegal aliens?

It's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on the issues of tasking local law with requiring ID from reasonably suspicious persons, but I can agree to disagree on that if we agree on what I think is the big issue - closing demand by bringing in a real chance of prosecution for companies who employ illegal aliens.

Unfortunately, the two go hand-in-hand. How can any official KNOW that some-one has hired illegals without determining the legal status of the employees?

Reasonable suspicion creates a loophole for some that can be exploited. No "reasonable suspicion" means law enforcement has to find another way to determine if the employees are in this country, and thus the state, legally. Any lawyer can make the case that the police didn't have "reasonable suspicion" to require id from the employees, and thus any result of them 'carding' ilegals within a given work place would be "fruit of the poison tree". In other words, not admissable in court.

So while the law is a step in the right direction on the demand side, it can easily be sidestepped by a cunning lawyer.
Of course, if the police can get a warrant, that arguement vanishes. Enforcement will, nonetheless, be tricky.

helgrenze wrote:
Unfortunately, it is an Iconic Belief of a "Better Life" that draws so many to this country. That is next to impossible to remove. It is what has drawn people to these shores for centuries.

I know. No matter how many of you we slaughtered, no one got the message and you just kept coming. If we're recinding the citizenships of illegal immigrants childern, and rounding up illegal immigrants, I'd like start with every white individual and put them on a boat back to Europe (everyone else, most of you seem ok, but I think we can all agree that the crazy WASPs got to go). We didn't have crimes against humanity in this country until you guys came sneaking over the boarder, with your drugs and diseases and slavery.

On the up side, you all seem addicted to cheap cigarettes and casinos. So step up, take this deep drag of poison and feed your life savings into a slot machine and you'll go just a little way toward making it even for two centuries of your inhumanity and greed.

helgrenze wrote:Any lawyer can make the case that the police didn't have "reasonable suspicion" to require id from the employees, and thus any result of them 'carding' ilegals within a given work place would be "fruit of the poison tree". In other words, not admissable in court.

So while the law is a step in the right direction on the demand side, it can easily be sidestepped by a cunning lawyer.

To make an argument is not to sidestep.

The "but white people immigrated here at one point too" joke was old, like, ten pages ago.

helgrenze wrote:Unfortunately, the two go hand-in-hand. How can any official KNOW that some-one has hired illegals without determining the legal status of the employees?

Fair point. It's a matter of approach though, if you start with businesses suspected of employing illegals and then put it on them to demonstrate the process they use to ensure everyone working there is legally allowed to work in the US, compared to carding people pulled over for speeding.

BaronIveagh wrote:

I know. No matter how many of you we slaughtered, no one got the message and you just kept coming. If we're recinding the citizenships of illegal immigrants childern, and rounding up illegal immigrants, I'd like start with every white individual and put them on a boat back to Europe (everyone else, most of you seem ok, but I think we can all agree that the crazy WASPs got to go). We didn't have crimes against humanity in this country until you guys came sneaking over the boarder, with your drugs and diseases and slavery.

On the up side, you all seem addicted to cheap cigarettes and casinos. So step up, take this deep drag of poison and feed your life savings into a slot machine and you'll go just a little way toward making it even for two centuries of your inhumanity and greed.

Interstingly enough, there are four white societies that cannot be found anywhere but on this continent... French-Canadians (or Quebequis, but they are Canada's problem.), Cajuns, Amish, and Pennsylvania Dutch. The last three are considered "Unique Societies" within the US. Since they developed here and can be found no-where else as a society, then they would, technically, qualify as "Native American".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Unfortunately, the two go hand-in-hand. How can any official KNOW that some-one has hired illegals without determining the legal status of the employees?

Fair point. It's a matter of approach though, if you start with businesses suspected of employing illegals and then put it on them to demonstrate the process they use to ensure everyone working there is legally allowed to work in the US, compared to carding people pulled over for speeding.

Yes , But, being pulled over for Speeding is a crime, though a traffic misdemeanor, for which a person would have to furnish documentation (Drivers License, Proof of Insurance). Not having a DL or Insurance would place that person in the "reasonable Suspicion" catagory.

helgrenze wrote:
Interstingly enough, there are four white societies that cannot be found anywhere but on this continent... French-Canadians (or Quebecois, but they are Canada's problem.), Cajuns, Amish, and Pennsylvania Dutch. The last three are considered "Unique Societies" within the US. Since they developed here and can be found no-where else as a society, then they would, technically, qualify as "Native American".

They aren't unique societies, or native Americans. Not by definition. You might think of them in that fashion, but that is not relevant to a seemingly objective statement.

Additionally, the 'whiteness' of a society is wholly subjective. Cajuns are not all white, neither are Quebecois.

helgrenze wrote:Yes , But, being pulled over for Speeding is a crime, though a traffic misdemeanor, for which a person would have to furnish documentation (Drivers License, Proof of Insurance). Not having a DL or Insurance would place that person in the "reasonable Suspicion" catagory.

Yeah, crappy example on my part - once the cop has spotted a speeder there's no greater use of resources. It comes down to how many resources the local police is willing to use to follow up on reasonable suspicions, what about reports from locals?

sebster wrote:Your understanding of politics is awful, and you refuse to let it get better.

The Nazi party, or National Socialist German Workers' Party had at it's root some elements of socialism. They originally fit a strange place in German politics, aggressively opposed to the Socialists and the Conservatives, taking on a hyper-nationalist stance that placed the German worker as the victim of a range of internal and external factors. Well, that makes it sound somewhat reasonable, truth is they condemned both capitalism and communism as Jewish plots.

The socialist element of the party was united under Gregor Strasser, and argued for mass action to remove the Jewish dominated capitalist system. Their popularity should not be understated.

However, that element of Nazism stopped very dramatically in 1934, when the left wing element of the party, including Strasser, were assassinated by the right wing of the party. From then on the direction of the Nazi party was dedicated absolutely towards deadly suppression of any proponents of left wing politics.

Meanwhile the Nazi party continued to receive the support of the conservative parties of Germany, the first Nazi government was achieved as a coalition with conservative parties - which would be a strange achievement for a socialist party.

If you need any more evidence you only have to consider the original of the term Nazi. The Social Democratic Party of Germany were the Sozis, and as their opponents their opposition were given the name Nazis.

So, seriously, can you please stop with that nonsense once and for all.

Sorry, Sebby but your ignoring that Socialism is an all-encompassing term with a broad definition.

One of these definitions is when the economy is nationalized and is derived directly from the economic system that Adolph instituted and continued to use throughout the war. You seem to think that socialism is purely a leftist/liberal system. It is not. Many whom support the concept of socialism try to use a symantic double standard where if a liberal group supports the socialist ideal it is good, but if a conservative group does the same then they are fascist.

Thing is these terms are not mutually exclusive in that you can have a liberal fascist and conservative socialist, because not every leftist supports all socialist policies and not all conservatives support totalitarian systems. The definitions for both fascim and nationalized socialism describe systems that initially embrace both left and right ideals and then gravitate towards a totalitarian system. Seriously, look at your argument. You would have everyone believe that once Hitler came to power that he had all the liberals killed or removed leaving only conservatives. This would be a massive portion of the population and is utterly preposterous. Adolph, was to busy going after another massive portion of the population and I don't think you want to argue that they, exclusively, were the liberals.

Check out the journalist Otto D. Tolischus. He wrote an interesting book on how Hitler rose to power. Its been 20+ years since I read it but some of the key elements I remember were that it covered in depth, Hitlers rise to power through the use and exploitation of socialized programs that he instituted. That by nationalizing Germany's economy and creating public works programs, he pulled the German people out of their economic depression and put them to work. These people were so happy just to be working and eating that they followed him with little reservation.

Just because it reflects negatively upon a system that you hold as an ideal, you should not discredit yourself by denying what was and still is fact. The Nazi's were socialist. A hybrid middle form of socialist, but still socialist.

Now I return your last statement, paraphrased and in proper question form, "Can you stop all of this denying the facts nonsense once and for all? '.

Edited spelling and to add details

That looks to be a gray area. Kinda like seeing some-one hitting a child. You can report it, but if the police do not see it happen or see any obvious evidence, there is little they can do.

Orkeosaurus wrote:The "but white people immigrated here at one point too" joke was old, like, ten pages ago.

Yet, for me, it's still funny.

It's like asking "What percentage white are you?" "If you're really white, where's your powdered wig and knee britches?" "Do you people still live in covered wagons?" "Do you feel that casino gambling in Las Vegas has helped the white race or is it just a bandaid?"

Point of fact, the amish dutch are a splinter group of a sect in southern Germany. While they've evolved since they split off, and developed an interesting variety of genetic diseases, they're not actually unique to North America.

BaronIveagh wrote:


I know. No matter how many of you we slaughtered, no one got the message and you just kept coming. If we're recinding the citizenships of illegal immigrants childern, and rounding up illegal immigrants, I'd like start with every white individual and put them on a boat back to Europe (everyone else, most of you seem ok, but I think we can all agree that the crazy WASPs got to go).

Thats what happens when you don't properly fund your homeland security budget.

Hey, 100% of our military budget went toward homeland security. It wasn't exactly under funded.

helgrenze wrote:

Interstingly enough, there are four white societies that cannot be found anywhere but on this continent... French-Canadians (or Quebequis, but they are Canada's problem.), Cajuns, Amish, and Pennsylvania Dutch. The last three are considered "Unique Societies" within the US. Since they developed here and can be found no-where else as a society, then they would, technically, qualify as "Native American".

Excellent. I'm now politically correct.
Get out of MY ancestral homeland all you evil peoples! Native rights!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:Hey, 100% of our military budget went toward homeland security. It wasn't exactly under funded.

Dude...deficit spending...

Frazzled wrote:
Dude...deficit spending...

No, that conflicts with out 'seven generations ahead' philosophy. Short term benefits for long term suffering is the white man's way. Do not give in to temptation.

Instead, open a casino and use their greed against them. It's hilarious to watch. And is funding us repurchasing our land, one plot at a time, if necessary.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Dude...deficit spending...

No, that conflicts with out 'seven generations ahead' philosophy. Short term benefits for long term suffering is the white man's way. Do not give in to temptation.

Instead, open a casino and use their greed against them. It's hilarious to watch. And is funding us repurchasing our land, one plot at a time, if necessary.

Come on admit it, they got hosed on the funding depreciation methodology. Shareholder suits to follow.

BaronIveagh wrote:It's like asking "What percentage white are you?" "If you're really white, where's your powdered wig and knee britches?" "Do you people still live in covered wagons?" "Do you feel that casino gambling in Las Vegas has helped the white race or is it just a bandaid?"

There was an episode of Just Shoot Me where Mark Hamil bothers Finch all day with questions about his job.

That was such a funny show.

focusedfire wrote:
One of these definitions is when the economy is nationalized and is derived directly from the economic system that Adolph instituted and continued to use throughout the war. You seem to think that socialism is purely a leftist/liberal system. It is not.

Actually, it is. Corporatism is the term that denotes the closest thing the right has to a socialist ideology.

The difference is evident in the approach to integration, and the manner in which state control manifests itself.

This is a common, American mistake. One I even made in this very forum, and I study politics for a living.

This thread got boring once Shuma stopped attacking me. LOL.

One poll I saw had 60% of US Voters approving of the AZ law. I wonder how Mn feels about closing off the Canadian border. LOL.

There were a lot of people angry when the passport restriction was placed on the Canuckistani border.

I'm not angry, just merely annoyed.

What used to be a 4 hour drive to the beautiful city of Winnipeg just on a whim and out of boredom (yes I'm somewhat eccentric) now becomes a major hassle (not to mention that's an expense I need to plan for this summer if I want to go to Canadia (passport that is).

If you were more liberal, you would probably already have a passport. Therefore purchasing a passport probably makes you more liberal.

So only liberals leave the country?

I could RISK trying to enter Canuckistan with no passport but that's a pain in the rear.

It was a joke, my friend.

With you sometimes it's hard to tell. LOL.

Seriously though, I always enjoy going to Winnipeg. Too bad Canada is not a place I'd ever want to live but it's good for a visit.