It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Real Reason That You are Terrified of Latinos, Africans, Asians and/or Muslims

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Do you believe you should have the right to vote for elected officials of the United States? And if yes, would that not imply that I could vote for Canadian Parliament members?
That seems fair.

I need some clarification on what you have said earlier. I have a few questions that can help clear up my understanding.

If legal immigrants conduct themselves according to their own cultural norms without violating the law or the rights of others, is there a problem?

If legal immigrants, endowed with citizen rights, pass a law that allows them greater freedom to practice their own culture without infringing on your own freedom, is that a problem?




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I am not terrified of Latinos, Africans, Asians and/or Muslims. It's peoples actions justified by their beliefs which scares me.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Yes, because we dont like illegal immigrants, and the increased crime, and the drug runners along the border......

We MUST BE TERRIFIED OF BROWN PEOPLE!

I love the mission of liberals and other groups of people trying to turn people who are against these sort of crimes into racists



P.s. OP im not attacking at all man, I appreciate all points of view , everyone has something valid to contribute, I just really get disgusted and frustrated with this idea, that because of certain views , people must be afraid of someone that is brown......
edit on 21-12-2010 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I have one question for you that has not been answered. If legal immigrants to your locality successfully pass a law that somehow inhibits your ability to practice some element of your culture, is that wrong?

reply to post by Night Star
 


I have a question for you as well. If that employer hires 200 citizens instead of 200 immigrants, he will be paying a great deal more in wages. Compared to his current scheme for hiring, this is an inefficient use of capital. In the present economic hard times, it is in the employer's best interest to maximize their capital efficiency and ride out the financial storm. My question is this: Why should the employer put his business at risk just to hire more citizens?


He is already placing his business at risk as he is hiring 'illegal' immigrants. Some of these companies do get caught and the illegals get deported. What good is it doing the economy for legal citizens to be on welfare because of job loss and they can no longer collect unemployment?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


Why is the welfare of other citizens the concern of the businessman?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


It should not be the concern of the bussinessman, but the state and lawmakers. And they should be concerned because of the scenario number 2:
Keep the welfare, but counter increased numbers of people needing it (due to immigration of unqualified individuals raising unemployment) with increasing taxes, thus hurting growth, causing economic decline, further increase in unemployment because of that and so on, until the economy collapses - no money from taxes for welfare, and again, the result is third world country. Slower process, the same outcome.

If the average cost saved by lower wage for the immigants is less than average cost payed to welfare due to increasing unemployment (and that would very probably be the case), then the net effect is detrimental to the economy, as seen above.
edit on 21/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


So, the welfare of the collective trumps the freedom of the individual?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Smedley, citizens are suffering because of illegal immigration. many hospitals have had to close, many people have lost their jobs and are struggling to survive. Illegal immigrants have cost us an outrageous amount of money on so many levels. People are hungry and crying and overwhelmed and frustrated and angry...and all because our laws were not enforced.

America is still seen as the place of dreams and opportunity. It has changed drastically since I was growing up and all for the worse. I have always had compassion for people all over the world, but I see my own countrymen suffering too and will stand up for them every chance that I can.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Either that, or abolishing welfare, which would cause humanitarian and in turn economic crisis even faster. That is scenario number 1:
Discontinue all forms of government benefits and welfare programs (even in economic crisis?) so government will not have to increase spending, but millions of people in America would fall into poverty. If you allow unregulated immigration on top of that, ANOTHER millions of poor and uneducated people would come into America on top of that, and also wont receive government assistance and majority would end up the same. Instant third world country.

See? It does not matter if welfare of the poor (not collective!) trumps the freedom of the individual or not, excess immigration of poor people is still a no-win situation for any country.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 

The Real Reason:
2 Immigrants with a birthrate of 4 will produce 120+ descendants in 80 years.
To put that in perspective: 20 million immigrants (Number of Illegal immigrants) with a birthrate of 4 will produce 1.2 billion descendants in 80 years. That doesnt count the birthrate of all those recent immigrants already here or all those who will come here in the next 80 years, nor does it count the possibility that the birthrate is even higher than 4.
The way for immigrants to take over a country is simply to out breed the native population.The current native birthrate in the US is below 2.
America already has enough people. Current immigration policy is to allow in 3 million people a year. That is 300 million in 100 years. Thats insanity or a conspiracy.

edit on 21-12-2010 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

That seems fair.

It doesn't to me.

Here's a couple of great examples (and forgive me if I am in error concerning Canadian law):
  • As I understand it, firearms possession (especially handguns) is extremely strict in Canada. Now would you feel the same way if the population of the United States suddenly voted in a Canadian election in favor of a government that would make handgun possession easy?

  • I also understand there is nationalized health care in Canada. How would you feel if the population of the United States voted a Canadian government in which removed nationalized health care?

I don't think you would be very happy with either result.

Fair is when I vote on those things that affect my region, my nation, my culture, and you do the same.


If legal immigrants conduct themselves according to their own cultural norms without violating the law or the rights of others, is there a problem?

Not at all. I do not expect someone from India to immediately start eating steak every night. They have every right to maintain their heritage, as long as they do not try to change the overall culture to suit them.

I also recognize that any influx of immigrants will affect the culture overall, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. Where I disagree is where immigrants begin to try and change the indigenous culture to theirs, not when they try to retain their cultural heritage or the culture changes naturally as a result of their existence.


If legal immigrants, endowed with citizen rights, pass a law that allows them greater freedom to practice their own culture without infringing on your own freedom, is that a problem?

In the United States, legal residents already have this law and this right. So your question is moot; no new law is needed. A Mexican, African, Frenchman, Spaniard, etc. can still speak their language in their homes or even between themselves. They should not have the right to force me to learn their language so they can enjoy the benefits of the culture they are forcing to change, nor should they be allowed to violate the laws of the area in order to undercut wage restrictions, nor should they be able to sponge off the government charities after having contributed nothing to the society.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


You must currently be employed. I'm in the painting business or was, illegals have put me out of business and lowered the pay scale as has the economy also, if you do happen to find work where I live, it's not enough to survive on. Why do you think I need to compete for a job with an illegal thats breaking the law just being here? They keep having babies they can't afford, so they can get more benefits, very irresponsible, most of them could care less about this country or they wouldn't do the things they do. They fraudulently steal from US citizens and our gov and you want me to be OK with that? I'm selling what few possessions I've worked very hard for to try and pay bills, house has been for sale for over a yr and may be going into foreclosure soon. This is the effect illegal immigration has had on me and lots of illegals where I live still working, it's F'up. When your checking out in a grocery store and the lady that speaks no English w/four kids is using food stamps/card and goes out and puts her groceries in a new Cadillac Escalade with 21" spinners, I'm so.....really not OK with that, and I see it all the time. FYI Before you think I'm profiling, I knew for fact she's illegal. I live in a very small community. Illegals cost American taxpayers $113 billion a yr at least, cost Ca $21 billion a yr, any idea why they're bankrupt? My state spent almost $1 billion just in education for illegals and they want to keep cutting school budgets, should we be paying to teach kids English in HS? Should my kids education suffer for lack of funds? I've seen their paychecks they claim max dependents and then ship their money to Mexico, when they leave and come back they have different SS#'s. The US allows more immigrants into this country annually than every country on the planet combined allows. What if we send the overflow up to Canada and you can support them with your bank account? If we sent 1/2 the illegals to Canada, would you and your country be OK with giving up 10 million jobs and paying 55 billion a yr to support them? Try supporting them while your unemployed, see if you still feel the same about it. I'm not racist and I'm not against legal immigration, my daughter is also 1/2 Spanish. I also realize that a lot of it has do with corporate America's thirst for cheap labor so I'm not ignorant to the responsibility the US has with the problem and not all illegals abuse the system, but the majority that do is overwhelming our system and it's wrong what a lot of them are doing and they don't care. They have not put in the effort to make their own country successful, but they have no problem coming here and riding the coat tails of a country that has put a lot of effort to make the country what it is (or was). I think that's cowardly and lazy. Prior immigrants from way back didn't come over here and demand we pay for their babies, food, education, housing, etc.......most worked very hard to help build this country and carried their weight, no comparison to a large majority of the illegal immigrants today. I hope I didn't offend anyone, not my intent, it is NOT a racial issue with me but a moral and ethical issue. It's hard to watch.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


reply to post by Maslo
 


So, am I correct to say that you both think that security [job security; welfare security; national security] trumps human liberty? That seems to be where your arguments are pointing.
edit on 22-12-2010 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 

Liberty comes with a price, if you're not willing to pay the price don't expect the liberty.
..............



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


Yes, exactly. If you expect to be free and to live in a free country, a free world, you must sacrifice the security that law and order bring. You must be willing to live in a world of self-ordering chaos, an anarchic state of spontaneous action and organization. Liberty can be painful and cruel and merciless but without it we are hardly human.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 

"you must sacrifice the security that law and order bring."
I think the definition of law and order has done a *180 , I don't feel secure with the direction law and order is headed, the opposite IMO.


edit on 22-12-2010 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 




So, am I correct to say that you both think that security [job security; welfare security; national security] trumps human liberty?


Yes, in this case security of the state citizens trumps liberty of foreingers to settle into the country. Just as your security at your house trumps liberty of uninvited persons to come into your house or property. If you think of the country as a house of all its inhabitants (why not? its logical) then limiting immigration according to their will is fully compatible even with libertarian philosophy, so I dont see why its such a problem for you.
Or do you think liberty to move should trump even the will of property owners?

To answer your question in more broad terms - you must strike an optimal balance between security and liberty. Both extremes, either maximum security and zero liberty or zero security and maximal liberty are bad for majority of individuals and development of society as a whole.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Or do you think liberty to move should trump even the will of property owners?
Yes, I do.

There is no property of ownership inherent in an object. A house does not belong to you because of its nature or yours. It only belongs to you because you say it belongs to you. You only own it as long as it is in your possession. If it leaves your possession, if it is removed from your possession, then it is no longer your house because your ownership of it is not a part of it.

I am always baffled by so-called libertarians who claim to have property rights and say that government should exist in a limited form that only functions to protect property rights. Someone who truly embraces liberty in all of its terrible glory would recognize that possessions are fleeting and that might makes [property] right. How else would America have become what it is today?
edit on 22-12-2010 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
If I can't illegally immigrate into Mexico (felony offense) then I don't understand why they should be allowed to illegally immigrate into the US. And I'm not terrified of any one race. But I grew up knowing that wrong is wrong, and right is right. ILLEGAL = WRONG.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Wow, you are truly a radical libertarian. But even in that case, you still have not provided any reason why restricting immigration is against liberty as you define it.




It only belongs to you because you say it belongs to you. You only own it as long as it is in your possession.


Thats the situation with citizens and their country. It is currently in their posession, and they have the means to enforce it. So why are you complaining if they do it? That would go against their liberty to use their might to enforce their rules on their current property.



Someone who truly embraces liberty in all of its terrible glory would recognize that possessions are fleeting and that might makes [property] right.


I think everyone agrees that in reality, might always makes right. The whole struggle between collectivism and individualism is only about who will posses or have a say in using and directing the most ultimate might in a society (there always is one, unless everyone is exactly equal, which is nonsense). Either all or majority (collectivism, state), or minority (individualism, anarchy).

edit on 22/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join