[Luvianka]

(01-02-2014 10:51 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

It's interesting to look at how other countries deal with the issue of illegal immigration, and their rationale for doing so. Israel, for example, takes an extremely hard-line approach on immigration, and does so unapologetically in order to preserve its existence as an ethnic Jewish state. In fact, they had a law allowing for the arrest and incarceration of illegal African immigrants. They were allowed to hold them for up to three years without deporting them. The Israelis were literally running concentration camps, that's how serious they are about stopping illegal immigration. In fact, they don't even call them immigrants, they call them "infiltrators". The Israeli Supreme Court recently ruled the law unconstitutional, and a lot of Israelis are quite upset about it.

http://rt.com/news/israel-immigrants-deport-mass-907/

http://www.france24.com/en/20130917-isra...-migrants/

Don't you give a shit about Israel and israelies, they are hypocrites as hell. In the 80s the Mossad carried 'Operation Mosses' to bring thousands of Ethiopian Falashas (Black Jews) to the Holy Land. In big fanfare, these people were welcomed to Israel only to be forced sterilized, marginalized and not plenty recognized as 'Jews'. However, this population has the same obligations as any other Israeli, including a 3 year compulsory military service for men and 2 year for women. The result: Things are boiling:

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-02-2014 10:51 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

It's interesting to look at how other countries deal with the issue of illegal immigration, and their rationale for doing so. Israel, for example, takes an extremely hard-line approach on immigration, and does so unapologetically in order to preserve its existence as an ethnic Jewish state. In fact, they had a law allowing for the arrest and incarceration of illegal African immigrants. They were allowed to hold them for up to three years without deporting them. The Israelis were literally running concentration camps, that's how serious they are about stopping illegal immigration. In fact, they don't even call them immigrants, they call them "infiltrators". The Israeli Supreme Court recently ruled the law unconstitutional, and a lot of Israelis are quite upset about it.

http://rt.com/news/israel-immigrants-deport-mass-907/

http://www.france24.com/en/20130917-isra...-migrants/

Israel only offers citizenship to Jewish immigrants under the law of return. Also, Arabs who were born - and stayed -in present-day Israel while it was under British rule were granted full citizenship. That's it. No gentile is eligible for citizenship in Israel. They also don't observe jus soli nationality; that is, unlike the US, one cannot obtain Israeli citizenship just from being born there.

Thus, the comparison doesn't fit at all. Israel does accept migrants and detains them under international human rights conventions that it is a signatory to, but that's it.

A better comparison to the US would be Australia, New Zealand, and Canada which all have similar immigration policies.

[scorpion]

(01-02-2014 10:39 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

This is completely misguided. First of all, Muslim immigration to the UK is overwhelmingly legal, and most of those people come from former British colonies. You'd like to characterize Britain as some quaint little island all to itself but conveniently forget that the British colonized 1/4 of the world's people and destroyed many societies, including the USA at one point. Many countries in the developing world are still grappling with the legacy of British colonialism in adverse ways. Your description of the immigrants there is more apt to describe the British themselves!

So you're basically saying it's a good thing that the British people are being genocided in their homeland because their ancestors did some things that were not nice?

[scorpion]

(01-02-2014 11:02 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Israel only offers citizenship to Jewish immigrants under the law of return. Also, Arabs who were born - and stayed -in present-day Israel while it was under British rule were granted full citizenship. That's it. No gentile is eligible for citizenship in Israel. They also don't observe jus soli nationality; that is, unlike the US, one cannot obtain Israeli citizenship just from being born there.

Thus, the comparison doesn't fit at all. Israel does accept migrants and detains them under international human rights conventions that it is a signatory to, but that's it.

A better comparison to the US would be Australia, New Zealand, and Canada which all have similar immigration policies.

So can you explain to me why it's acceptable for Israel to have a blatantly racist, hardline immigration policy, but in the United States we must open our borders to floods of immigrants, both legal and illegal?

Why is an ethnically Jewish country allowed to preserve its racial homogeneity while ethnically white countries are denied the same right?

There is no rational argument for an exception - either the policy is morally acceptable or it's not. Either a country is allowed to preserve its existence by cracking down on immigration or it is not. The double standard is not defensible.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-02-2014 11:03 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(01-02-2014 10:39 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

This is completely misguided. First of all, Muslim immigration to the UK is overwhelmingly legal, and most of those people come from former British colonies. You'd like to characterize Britain as some quaint little island all to itself but conveniently forget that the British colonized 1/4 of the world's people and destroyed many societies, including the USA at one point. Many countries in the developing world are still grappling with the legacy of British colonialism in adverse ways. Your description of the immigrants there is more apt to describe the British themselves!

So you're basically saying it's a good thing that the British people are being genocided in their homeland because their ancestors did some things that were not nice?

You're describing Muslim immigrants to the UK in a way that befits British colonialists, a legacy that the UK still profits from. That's simply incorrect and disingenuous on your part. I haven't heard of any genocide in the UK. Maybe you're talking about a former British colony like Sudan (i.e. Darfur)?

[Cattle Rustler]

The whole illegal immigration thing went downhill when the native americans let the pilgrims settle.

[Screwston]

(01-02-2014 10:38 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

scorpion, I don't buy the idea that there is going to be a two cultures phenomenon there for very long. Give it a couple of generations -- people have said the same things about Italian enclaves etc. There is definitely going to be a hispanic shading to these places for a long time to come but I believe they will create a culture that is within the American mainstream in stunningly short order. And you can already see it happening in LA and elsewhere.

Maybe some of the hispanic guys on the forum who live in these places -- and who also strike me as some of the most American guys on the forum at the same time -- would like to chime in?

EDIT -- I see that our hispanic and super-American contingent was chiming in as I wrote this -- excellent.

Yes they become Americanized at second generation. Not sure what scorpion is talking about unless I read his post wrong. I guess if knowing some Spanish and eating Mexican food means you're still not assimilated then yeah maybe not. I dont know, I think some of these guys would be in for a huge culture shock if they came here. You know after seeing Mexican Americans speak normal English and driving nice cars lol. I really have nothing in common with illegal immigrant and they usually don't like chicanos anyways because we act to white. I think a lot of posters really think we are all wetbacks and just got in the country or something Idk. On one hand, I could care less about them but then its like "well, white people are throwing you in the same boat as them" so stuck in the middle. That's how I feel when reading these threads. Never had a problem with white dudes down here and did plenty of crazy shit with some of them when I was younger. I guess its just a different world here with 4th, 5th, 6th generation Mexicans. A black high school teacher me told me people are going to assume the worst things just because of your last name. He was right!

[Luvianka]

(01-02-2014 11:11 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

The whole illegal immigration thing went downhill when the native americans let the pilgrims settle.

LMAO!!!!!

[The Lizard of Oz]

scorpion, it's not about what a country is allowed to do. Of course the US is entitled to determine its own immigration policy just like anyone else. It's just a question of what the practical consequences are, and I think the US can get away with a much more permissive policy than almost any other country, given the identity of the immigrants and the nature of American society.

HC, the Muslim immigrants in Europe are creating hostile, unassimilable and violent enclaves. Many of them actively hate the host countries and plot to harm them. It's a bad situation and it's likely to get worse.

[scorpion]

(01-02-2014 11:08 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

You're describing Muslim immigrants to the UK in a way that befits British colonialists, a legacy that the UK still profits from. That's simply incorrect and disingenuous on your part. I haven't heard of any genocide in the UK. Maybe you're talking about a former British colony like Sudan (i.e. Darfur)?

I refer to the slow motion genocide the inevitably occurs when importing massive numbers of fast-breeding Muslims who displace slow-breeding whites. And I said nothing about colonialism, now you're just muddying the waters with irrelevant historical grievances. Indians and Bangladeshis shouldn't be entitled to live in modern day Britain because of British colonialism 150 years ago. No idea what the hell you're even on about with that.

[iknowexactly]

Hey, if you're going to get invaded by someone, you could do a lot worse than Mexicans. They're mostly pretty nice.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-02-2014 11:08 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(01-02-2014 11:02 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Israel only offers citizenship to Jewish immigrants under the law of return. Also, Arabs who were born - and stayed -in present-day Israel while it was under British rule were granted full citizenship. That's it. No gentile is eligible for citizenship in Israel. They also don't observe jus soli nationality; that is, unlike the US, one cannot obtain Israeli citizenship just from being born there.

Thus, the comparison doesn't fit at all. Israel does accept migrants and detains them under international human rights conventions that it is a signatory to, but that's it.

A better comparison to the US would be Australia, New Zealand, and Canada which all have similar immigration policies.

So can you explain to me why it's acceptable for Israel to have a blatantly racist, hardline immigration policy, but in the United States we must open our borders to floods of immigrants, both legal and illegal?

Modern-day Israel was founded as a result of the Zionism movement, which called for a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland. This was a unique call to the Jewish people who had been discriminated against and oppressed - with no homeland of their own - for centuries. Though Jews are an ethnicity, they are part of many different races, and Jews from anywhere in the world are allowed to return to Israel.

That is compellingly and utterly different from the reasons as to why the US was founded (separation from church and state), which has historically been open to immigrants since its inception, first from Europe and then eventually the world.

There's nothing in the Constitution that prescribes where immigrants can come from. The word "immigration" is not even mentioned once.

[kbell]

Was the outcome of UK colonialism such a bad thing? What do you think is worse, Uk colonism, Islam spread, or illegal landscapers?

This thread will blow up. Probably 10 pages by tomorrow morning and some potential meltdowns.

Got popcorn ready.

[MrXY]

(01-02-2014 10:57 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Again -- every situation is different. Israel is a tiny country which is fighting for its survival. There's just no comparison.

There most certainly is a comparison-every nation has a right to protect its sovereignty and to its citizens from foreign invasion.

Jews have been among the most loud-mouthed, active and deep-pocketed supporters of open border and massive immigration into Western countries yet are extremely restrictive on an ethno-religious basis as to who can be a citizen of Israel-a law they would be screeching about as a violation of human rights if any other country did it. Jews get automatic right to settle in Israel and citizenship. Imagine if the US had such a policy for whites or Christians-oy-veh!

The list of hypocritical double standards they practice is a lengthy one

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-02-2014 11:17 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(01-02-2014 11:08 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

You're describing Muslim immigrants to the UK in a way that befits British colonialists, a legacy that the UK still profits from. That's simply incorrect and disingenuous on your part. I haven't heard of any genocide in the UK. Maybe you're talking about a former British colony like Sudan (i.e. Darfur)?

Indians and Bangladeshis shouldn't be entitled to live in modern day Britain because of British colonialism 150 years ago. No idea what the hell you're even on about with that.

India and Pakistan achieved independence from Britain in 1947, not 150 years ago. Then Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) achieved independence from Pakistan in 1971.

Also, the British government offered immigration to people from the Indian subcontinent, in droves actually. It has been British government policy. After all, India was known as the "pearl of the British empire" and it no doubt was the major source of riches for the empire that spurred its industrial revolution.

I don't think you're in any position to say who should or shouldn't immigrate to the UK. You're not even British. Why do you care?

[The Lizard of Oz]

MrXY - I'm not talking about "rights". We have the right to do what we want and Israel or any other country can do what it wants. The simple point is that hispanic immigration into the US is not any kind of disaster and may well be good for the country. If the immigrants were different or the society was different, it might be a very different story. You have to look at the realities on the ground in each case.

[Hencredible Casanova]

Trust me, you don't want the US to emulate Middle Eastern countries. I've been to that region, including Israel, and don't envy those people for one second. They ALL wish they could be in the US and not live out Middle Age squabbles.

Forget about Israel, look at the United Arab Emirates. All of those Indians and Filipinos who immigrated there, some for backbreaking work, are never allowed to become citizens. Neither are their children who are born there.

Hell, Palestinians that live in neighboring Arab countries as refugees since 1967 aren't even allowed citizenship.

In Saudi Arabia it's technically illegal for Jews (from anywhere in the world) to visit the country.

That's what America should become? No thanks.

[scorpion]

(01-02-2014 11:24 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Modern-day Israel was founded as a result of the Zionism movement, which called for a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland. This was a unique call to the Jewish people who had been discriminated against and oppressed - with no homeland of their own - for centuries. Though Jews are an ethnicity, they are part of many different races, and Jews from anywhere in the world are allowed to return to Israel.

That is compellingly and utterly different from the reasons as to why the US was founded (separation from church and state), which has historically been open to immigrants since its inception, first from Europe and then eventually the world.

There's nothing in the Constitution that prescribes where immigrants can come from.

You know what's funny? The United States used to have a similar law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act

Quote:

The Emergency Quota Act restricted the number of immigrants admitted from any country annually to 3% of the number of residents from that same country living in the United States as of the U.S. Census of 1910. Based on that formula, the number of new immigrants admitted fell from 805,228 in 1920 to 309,556 in 1921-22.

The act meant that only people of Northern Europe who had similar cultures to that of America were likely to get in. The excuse was the American government wanted to protect its culture when this act was introduced.

So why is this no longer the case? That would be on account of this law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration...ct_of_1965

Quote:

The 1965 act marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. The law as it stood then excluded Latin Americans, Asians and Africans and preferred northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern ones.
...
In order to convince the American people of the legislation's merits, its proponents assured that passage would not influence America's culture significantly. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions", while Secretary of State Dean Rusk estimated only a few thousand Indian immigrants over the next five years, and other politicians, including Senator Ted Kennedy, hastened to reassure the populace that the demographic mix would not be affected; these assertions would later prove wildly inaccurate.

How did this law come to pass? For a detailed explanation, see: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/CofCchap7.pdf

In brief:

Quote:

Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

And so we see Jews in the United States pushing for open immigration, while Jews in Israel literally run concentration camps to detain illegal immigrants. But no one is allowed to talk about that, because it would be "racist" or "anti-semitic". And so historically white countries are not allowed to defend themselves against the flood of immigrants, while the Jews who pushed for relaxed immigration in the West are brutally anti-immigrant in their homeland.

[The Lizard of Oz]

An interesting feature of the Emergency Quota Act:

Quote:

The Act set no limits on immigration from Latin America.

[Luvianka]

(01-02-2014 11:43 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Trust me, you don't want the US to emulate Middle Eastern countries. I've been to that region, including Israel, and don't envy those people for one second. They ALL wish they could be in the US and not live out Middle Age squabbles.

Forget about Israel, look at the United Arab Emirates. All of those Indians and Filipinos who immigrated there, some for backbreaking work, are never allowed to become citizens. Neither are their children who are born there.

Hell, Palestinians that live in neighboring Arab countries as refugees since 1967 aren't even allowed citizenship.

In Saudi Arabia it's technically illegal for Jews (from anywhere in the world) to visit the country.

That's what America should become? No thanks.

Europeans and Middle Easterns would change places with Americans any moment, any day.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-02-2014 11:50 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

And so we see Jews in the United States pushing for open immigration, while Jews in Israel literally run concentration camps to detain illegal immigrants. But no one is allowed to talk about that, because it would be "racist" or "anti-semitic". And so historically white countries are not allowed to defend themselves against the flood of immigrants, while the Jews who pushed for relaxed immigration in the West are brutally anti-immigrant in their homeland.

American Jews are not necessarily equivalent to Israeli Jews. Jews in America may or may not support Zionism. In fact, a large number do not support Israel or are simply indifferent. The vast majority of American Jews do not have Israeli citizenship, and most have never even been to Israel. Some of the most strident critics of Israel are Jewish-Americans.

But on a separate note, you're advocating the resurrection of a racist law that prescribes where immigrants may come from. That's something a white nationalist would say. What's next? Schools and public venues should be segregated on the account of race? Lynchings should make a comeback too?

[scorpion]

(01-03-2014 12:06 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

American Jews are not exactly equivalent to Israeli Jews. Jews in America may or may not support Zionism. In fact, a large number do not support Israel or are simply indifferent. The vast majority of American Jews do not have Israeli citizenship, and most have never even been to Israel. Some of the most ardent critics of Israel are Jewish-Americans.

But on a separate note, you're advocating the resurrection of a racist law that prescribes where immigrants may come from. That's something a white nationalist would say. What's next? Schools and public venues should be segregated on the account of race? Lynchings should make a comeback too?

The vast majority of U.S. Jews are strongly Pro-Israel. More importantly, however, literally almost 100% of influential American Jews are strongly pro-Israel. These are just facts.

As for calling that law racist, why, exactly? It simply called for the preservation of the existing racial demographics at the time. How can that be considered racist? It's the exact same thing Israel is doing today, which you have no problem with. In both cases each country was/is simply trying to preserve its existing racial composition. If you think this is immoral and racist, then tell me how you'd feel about white people moving into Africa and gradually displacing the native blacks. Why is it only racist when white people want to preserve their racial homogeneity in their traditional lands, but Asians, Blacks and Jews are encouraged to do just that?

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-03-2014 12:22 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

(01-03-2014 12:06 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

American Jews are not exactly equivalent to Israeli Jews. Jews in America may or may not support Zionism. In fact, a large number do not support Israel or are simply indifferent. The vast majority of American Jews do not have Israeli citizenship, and most have never even been to Israel. Some of the most ardent critics of Israel are Jewish-Americans.

But on a separate note, you're advocating the resurrection of a racist law that prescribes where immigrants may come from. That's something a white nationalist would say. What's next? Schools and public venues should be segregated on the account of race? Lynchings should make a comeback too?

The vast majority of U.S. Jews are strongly Pro-Israel. More importantly, however, literally almost 100% of influential American Jews are strongly pro-Israel. These are just facts.

As for calling that law racist, why, exactly? It simply called for the preservation of the existing racial demographics at the time. How can that be considered racist? It's the exact same thing Israel is doing today, which you have no problem with. In both cases each country was/is simply trying to preserve its existing racial composition. If you think this is immoral and racist, then tell me how you'd feel about white people moving into Africa and gradually displacing the native blacks. Why is it only racist when white people want to preserve their racial homogeneity in their traditional lands, but Asians, Blacks and Jews are encouraged to do just that?

That link you cited from JPost (a center-right or right wing Israeli publication) is completely bogus. The headline was of its own making, not a logical conclusion from the survey that was conducted.

Read the actual article, which you googled since it was from 2011.

How is the following tantamount to strong support for Israel?

"94% say that if Jewish state "no longer existed tomorrow," it would be a "tragedy.""

That's a very illogical conclusion to suggest that's evidence of strong support. One would reasonably assume the premise for the country not existing would be the result of a catastrophic attack. Of course that's a tragedy, anywhere in the world. That doesn't signify strong support in the least.

Read this recent article form Wash Post using logical questions without a disingenuous haedline.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl...ut-israel/

In fact, Evangelical Christians are more pro-Israel than Jewish Americans.

If you look at media, academia, etc, some of the most influential Jewish-Americans are critical of Israeli policies. Just listen to NPR or read a NYT op-ed on the subject.

As for your second point. is that a serious question? Permitting immigration strictly from northern Europe is not racist? I think you got lost and thought you were in your white nationalist forum.

[Quintus Curtius]

The inescapable laws of history tell us that peoples, nations, and tribes that are not willing to protect their identities will be absorbed or conquered by other groups.

Who now calls himself a Parthian, Jute, Phyrgian, Hittite, Phoenician, Etruscan, or Carthaginian? These are nations that failed to preserve their identities, and got swallowed up in the maw of population movements. There are scores of such nations in history.

The same thing with languages. Many languages in the world are currently headed for extinction. They will survive only if the people speaking them wish to preserve them. It is that simple. History is a cruel arbiter of fate. The resourceful and strong will persist, and the others who fail the ultimate test will succumb.

So, people have every right to seek greener pastures on better soil. I don't begrudge the immigrants their desire to better themselves. But I'm not going to let them pick my pocket. They have a right to try to better themselves, but I also have a right to fight their attempt to take what I have. If our governments in the West care about the survival of our traditions and culture, they will take steps to control immigration in a manageable form. If they do nothing, then they have spoken before the tribunal of history. They will have been judged, and found wanting.

So, either we will pass the test of history, or we will not. Immigration that is controlled and gradual can do wonders for the health of a nation, by injecting a tired strain with a fresh infusion of blood. But if allowed to become an avalanche, then it looks more like an invasion.

[scorpion]

HC, you ignored the part of my post that said: "More importantly, however, literally almost 100% of influential American Jews are strongly pro-Israel."

No one gives a shit if Shlomo the Brooklyn Deli owner is ambivalent toward Israel. When 90+% of influential Jews in media and government all push the Zionist agenda, however, you can't pretend that's not happening.

But honestly, what's the point of continuing this? You're obviously anti-white. And you've labeled me a white nationalist. So this debate is going nowhere. We'll see what the future holds. Frankly, though, I think your way of thinking is on the way out. Multiculturalism and immigration have been a complete disaster for the West, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to hide that fact. You can cry racism all you want, but in the end it's simply going to come down to self-preservation. The guilt trip only works for so long. As Quintius pointed out, if a people wish to survive, they must actively protect their identity. The ideology of multiculturalism is in direct opposition to this goal, so white countries will either wake up and return to "racist" (as you would say) policies, or they will simply cease to exist.

I can't speak for you, but personally, I'd rather be a racist than have my people cease to exist.