Why Socialism?

We have in the modern era. And when we didn't, we still had right to have them even if the government determined it wasn't a priority. Having immigration controls is and always has been a core function of government, even if the government has chosen at certain times to have high quotas.

We have had immigration quotas as long as we have had immigration quotas and that justifies them. Great reasoning. Now apply that to the Federal Reserve. You Naugahyde bastard!

How could it have always been a core function of government when it was not. Again, that notion is part of your Nazi philosophy, not our liberal one.

I can't think of any arguments for prohibitions on immigration in the writings of our founders or the enlightenment thinkers. Too many of them had recent knowledge of what it was to yearn for freedom.

You are the typical spoiled and useless offspring of some immigrant. You should be deported for some decent person looking for opportunity rather than handouts.

But you're wrong. when the economy contracts, citizens urge a change in the immigration policy to protect the labor markets and their standard of living, as they are reasonable to do. And the government responds accordingly.

Not relevant to the point I made. What am I wrong about? Apparently you are arguing another straw man.

When the economy contracts immigration naturally declines. For the last several years immigrants have been leaving.

It's responsibility of government to defend the borders from invasion.

Another example of your dishonest propaganda and bullshit slogans. An immigrant is not part of an invading military.

Nobody's HIDING. Economics has always been the motivation.

Economics has never been the motivation. Please, explain why Asians were excluded for economic reasons while Europeans were not?

Your presentation is nothing but lies, distortion and revionism, and stupidity, and being a cunt face.

uhhh-huh. You are the one lying about our intellectual heritage and the history of immigration policy while using dishonest slogans.

Border enforcement against invasion is always a core function of every government. All around the planet. Your globalization revisionism and distortion is just stupidity.

:rolleyes:

You can't make one point without sneaking in some lie or delusion. No invasion is taking place. Just stfu already.
 
We have had immigration quotas as long as we have had immigration quotas and that justifies them. Great reasoning. Now apply that to the Federal Reserve. You Naugahyde bastard!
Bottom line, the government has the authority to implement immigration quotas. People deserve them to protect the labor market. It's not naziism.
How could it have always been a core function of government when it was not. Again, that notion is part of your Nazi philosophy, not our liberal one.
The government has not always chosen to exercise it's authority at all times, but all governments throughout history have had this power. And only one of them was a nazi regime.
I can't think of any arguments for prohibitions on immigration in the writings of our founders or the enlightenment thinkers. Too many of them had recent knowledge of what it was to yearn for freedom.
they didn't really touch on all topics. Plus, it's just a defacto known function of government that immigration can be controlled if it's deemed the best policy. controlling who's in your country is a core function of government.

Are you really making the case that having enforced immigration quotas is unconstitutional?
You are the typical spoiled and useless offspring of some immigrant. You should be deported for some decent person looking for opportunity rather than handouts.
So now we see your anti-american hatred in full force. I deserve the labor market protections of a function enforced border policy, and a reasonable trade policy that IS NOT the result of internationalist fascist brainwashing at the highest levels of governance.
Not relevant to the point I made. What am I wrong about? Apparently you are arguing another straw man.
It is relevant. You're wrong about everything you assert in your deformed notion of globalist governance in the new normal.
When the economy contracts immigration naturally declines. For the last several years immigrants have been leaving.




Another example of your dishonest propaganda and bullshit slogans. An immigrant is not part of an invading military.

Crossing the border illegally and taking resources from rightful citizens is in every sense an invasion. Invaders don't have to be armed to be invaders. Your word games will not excuse the federal government from shirking it's duty to defend the borders from invasion.
Economics has never been the motivation. Please, explain why Asians were excluded for economic reasons while Europeans were not?
You just said asians were excluded for economic reasons. That's what I said too.
uhhh-huh. You are the one lying about our intellectual heritage and the history of immigration policy while using dishonest slogans.
Look fucker, the founding fathers also believed in slavery. Is that what you believe too? Different times call for different measures. And immigration control is a core function of government.
:rolleyes:

You can't make one point without sneaking in some lie or delusion. No invasion is taking place. Just stfu already.

We are being invaded from all sides, and those in power would rather benefit from the labor glut than perform their legal duties.

Really your argument depends on hystericallly villainizing core functions of government as Naziism. That's the proof that you're a victim of internationalist fascist propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Are you really making the case that having enforced immigration quotas is unconstitutional?

We are being invaded from all sides, and those in power would rather benefit from the labor glut than perform their legal duties.

Really your argument depends on hystericallly villainizing core functions of government as Naziism. That's the proof that you're a victim of internationalist fascist brainwashing.
 
Are you really making the case that having enforced immigration quotas is unconstitutional?

We are being invaded from all sides, and those in power would rather benefit from the labor glut than perform their legal duties.

Really your argument depends on hystericallly villainizing core functions of government as Naziism. That's the proof that you're a victim of internationalist fascist brainwashing.

Everything is so black and white with you, isn't it?
Immigration is not and never has been a question of quotas. There is no question but that immigration must be subject to controls but those controls need to be carefully considered. There must also be an 're-emigration' policy.
I would suggest the controls be enforced according to:
1. the amount of difference over time an influx of foreigners might make to the life, culture and society of the host country.
2. The estimated cost of assimilation in terms of education, social security, language and culture.
3. The estimated benefits to the host society of new skills and new cultures.
4. The amount of reciprical acceptance by the foreign country to citizens and their attendant culture of the host nation. No churches in Iran = no mosques for Iranians. Enforced dress codes in one = enforced dress codes in the other.
and for 're-emigration'.
1. Being found guilty of any major crime,
2. being a member of or a supporter of any organisation that promotes terrorism.
3. Refusal of parents to allow their children to fully assimilate into the host nation.

To sum up: You are welcome if you want to be like us, to work like us, to dress like us and to embrace our culture and way of life.
Otherwise... stay where you are.
 
Everything is so black and white with you, isn't it?
Immigration is not and never has been a question of quotas. There is no question but that immigration must be subject to controls but those controls need to be carefully considered. There must also be an 're-emigration' policy.
I would suggest the controls be enforced according to:
1. the amount of difference over time an influx of foreigners might make to the life, culture and society of the host country.
2. The estimated cost of assimilation in terms of education, social security, language and culture.
3. The estimated benefits to the host society of new skills and new cultures.
4. The amount of reciprical acceptance by the foreign country to citizens and their attendant culture of the host nation. No churches in Iran = no mosques for Iranians. Enforced dress codes in one = enforced dress codes in the other.
and for 're-emigration'.
1. Being found guilty of any major crime,
2. being a member of or a supporter of any organisation that promotes terrorism.
3. Refusal of parents to allow their children to fully assimilate into the host nation.

To sum up: You are welcome if you want to be like us, to work like us, to dress like us and to embrace our culture and way of life.
Otherwise... stay where you are.

This is so perverse and bizarre, I am tempted to think you are merely being sarcastic, or doing a Colbert impersonation, or something. But it comes across as Colbert doing an impersonation of Archie Bunker, who's doing an impersonation of Drunk Mel Gibson! I can't make a lot of sense out of what you're saying, except that you sound rather prejudiced and bigoted toward people not like you.

the amount of difference over time an influx of foreigners might make to the life, culture and society of the host country.

Who gets to determine the criteria? Your prejudiced bigoted ass?

The estimated cost of assimilation in terms of education, social security, language and culture.

The estimated benefits to the host society of new skills and new cultures.


How would you even begin to 'estimate the cost' of such a thing? All people are different, they are individuals, and all have different levels of learning, comprehension, interest, motivation... and how are you to 'estimate' their contributions to culture, in order to make this evaluation?

The amount of reciprical acceptance by the foreign country to citizens and their attendant culture of the host nation. No churches in Iran = no mosques for Iranians. Enforced dress codes in one = enforced dress codes in the other.

This is where you really start to scare me. Do you understand, the United States of America is founded on the principles of unalienable rights, and Iran is not? Perhaps that might be the reason an Iranian wants to come here, so they aren't restricted by preconditions and violation of their freedoms? What you are suggesting is, we should be like them, but... if we're going to do that, why not just shoot illegal immigrants in the back of the head and dump them in a ditch, that's what happens if you're caught sneaking into Iran.

And as for your "re-emigration" policy (whateverthefuck that is)

1. Being found guilty of any major crime.

I think most of us have probably been found guilty of a crime, at some point in our lives. I know Stringy will argue that breaking the law isn't a crime, but for the most part, all of us have had some experience with being found guilty of something, at some time. Now, if the person has been found guilty of a major crime, yet they haven't served their penalty for the crime, and they are fugitives from justice, maybe that's a different story, but just being found guilty? What if it's an Iranian woman found guilty of fornication after she was raped and didn't have 3 witnesses to attest to that? Should we send her back to Iran to face public stoning?

2. being a member of or a supporter of any organisation that promotes terrorism.

Okay, finally you said something that sort of makes a little sense. Yes, I think we should always do a background check on people we let into the country, but we can't really do that if they are sneaking across the Mexican border in the middle of the night. That's exactly why illegal immigration is such a problem, not because we don't like people who don't look the same as us or speak our language.

Refusal of parents to allow their children to fully assimilate into the host nation.

So, we are going to force foreign parents to raise their children with the values and ideals we set for them? Perhaps Chinese parents could have their children learn to do laundry and work in Chinese restaurants? This would help them to fit in and 'assimilate' in our society!

How about something more reasonable and simple... You can come here and live whatever life you wish to live, providing you come legally, through the immigration process, and obey our laws. Pretty easy, huh?
 
Everything is so black and white with you, isn't it?
Immigration is not and never has been a question of quotas. There is no question but that immigration must be subject to controls but those controls need to be carefully considered. There must also be an 're-emigration' policy.
I would suggest the controls be enforced according to:
1. the amount of difference over time an influx of foreigners might make to the life, culture and society of the host country.
2. The estimated cost of assimilation in terms of education, social security, language and culture.
3. The estimated benefits to the host society of new skills and new cultures.
4. The amount of reciprical acceptance by the foreign country to citizens and their attendant culture of the host nation. No churches in Iran = no mosques for Iranians. Enforced dress codes in one = enforced dress codes in the other.
and for 're-emigration'.
1. Being found guilty of any major crime,
2. being a member of or a supporter of any organisation that promotes terrorism.
3. Refusal of parents to allow their children to fully assimilate into the host nation.

To sum up: You are welcome if you want to be like us, to work like us, to dress like us and to embrace our culture and way of life.
Otherwise... stay where you are.


Your opinions are wrong and queer. We will conduct our immigration policy to suit the majority of american citizens.

We don't care what you chinese fuckers think.
 
Originally Posted by AssHatZombie, "the founding fathers also believed in slavery. Is that what you believe too? Different times call for different measures.
so you do believe in a 'living' constitution?"

That jumped out at me, too.

I think AssHat must have been drunk when he wrote that. I mean there's no way AssHat is a "Living Constitution" Liberal! It just can't be. Maybe he was on a bad trip. Bought some bad "shit".

Something terrible has happened to our AssHat. :eek3:
 
Things like slavery have been found to be "questionable".

As for times changing doesn't the European Union have open borders?

Maybe Lowaicue can let us know.

Most of it has open borders between states with a few notable opt outs including the UK and Ireland.
 
Things like slavery have been found to be "questionable".

As for times changing doesn't the European Union have open borders?

Maybe Lowaicue can let us know.

And the European Unions is a globalist perversion of governance. You're making my case. globalist conceptions of governance reduce the usual powers of governance such that the nations laws merely reflect the desires of internationalist fascist social engineering elitists.

Even the French hate the EU as its trying to stop them from kicking out a few nuisance gypsies. Their tarot cards are causing much consternation apparently.
 
And the European Unions is a globalist perversion of governance. You're making my case. globalist conceptions of governance reduce the usual powers of governance such that the nations laws merely reflect the desires of internationalist fascist social engineering elitists.

Quite the contrary. All those countries have free vote meaning the result is more likely to benefit the whole as opposed to just one nation.

Even the French hate the EU as its trying to stop them from kicking out a few nuisance gypsies. Their tarot cards are causing much consternation apparently.

I can certainly believe that. I dated a Gypsy from Bulgaria. Those cards sang when she spread!

(Excerpt) Which spread is used is up to the reader and the specific type of question or reading. Some spreads focus more on a specific type of information. (End) (http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/extrasensory-perceptions/tarot-card2.htm)
 
She means that standard of living must be brought down in the U.S. so that nobody wants to come here anymore. She believes it's justice.
Yeah I know its a retarded view, stemming from the medieval economic model that in order for some to be rich there must be many poor.

Stop denigrating women everywhere by calling Apple a "she" though. He is a weenie liberal guy- huge difference.
 
Back
Top