It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

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?

By embracing the productive side of human nature and controlling the destructive side,

Human nature, left alone to its own devices, is greedy, destructive, and self-defeating. This is easily shown by looking at any area which does not have some type of law enforcement... inner cities, for example. Gangs form to establish might, which is then used to procure things the members want: drugs, 'toys', sex, money. Yet the members of these gangs rarely live very long nor really have anything they can call their own. It is a life punctuated by violence, abuse, and finally death. Yet it is also a life often chosen by the individuals in the gang culture, and leads inevitably to a destruction of the society around them and the things they seek to acquire.

America succeeded because the laws put in place take advantage of these undesirable human characteristics in a productive way. Instead of might makes right, productivity makes right; work makes right; innovation makes right. People are free to choose their path, as long as that path does not harm others.

The man in America who develops a new product receives the rewards of his innovation and work via a patent. The man who decides that might makes right and therefore tries to take that reward from him receives prison time and financial forfeiture. The man who works hard and long receives pay for that work and is able to buy things that make his life easier and more enjoyable; the man who would take those things from him by force receives punishment.

Thus, human nature is pressed into production rather than destruction.

You, by your statement quoted above that "might makes right", are denying the fact that it is the antithesis of this thought that has made America what it is (was). You support one man destroying the hard work and dreams of another, simply because he can. You support chaos and anarchy... both recently celebrated terms by a select few people... but you ignore the consequences they invoke. Even more telling is that while supporting chaos and anarchy, you are claiming that it is what has succeeded in America.

Methinks you watch too many John Wayne movies.

Indeed, the problems that now plague America and are causing it to decline from its height of glory are directly related to the same chaos and anarchy you support. The law no longer serves to right wrongs, but to maintain 'order', this 'order' defined as keeping those who have no might under the control of those who do. Government policies are made between the strongest in society, the government itself and the multinational corporations, to the detriment of the weaker in society. Criminals... murderers, robbers, rapists... those same people your words make you appear to believe are the 'best' of society... are no longer punished as they once were, but are instead catered to in manners deemed 'humane' and 'civilized' before being released back into society to create more chaos. Cities are becoming prisons themselves, as the once-common concept of leaving the front door unlocked in a 'good' neighborhood is replaced by the necessity of multiple locks and alarm systems to try desperately to retain some of the rewards legally and productively earned.

Life for those who produce and create and contribute is becoming a life of self-imposed imprisonment, constant fear, and struggle. Life for those who do not contribute and do not produce or create is becoming one of relative luxury and freedom. The worst elements of human nature, once controlled, are unleashed and celebrated. And as a result, the United States is destroying itself from within.

Right makes right. Might makes wrong.

I close with a short tale of a young, brash redneck who once had that might you speak of. He was a rough young lad, strong, spirited, and .strong. He feared no man and no thing. The world was his to claim as he chose. Thanks to his upbringing, he escaped the fate that life held for him; he did, however, watch many of his friends who had the same feelings of might come up to someone with more might than they. Some survived, learned, and managed to change themselves to accept reality as he did. Others did not learn, and spent their lives in poverty, want, and prison. A few did not survive. This young man learned that might may seem to make right to the mighty, but in the end, there is always someone mightier.

I survived my youthful beliefs. I pray you do as well.


posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

I nominate you as the future official Canadian illegal door greeter when the borders open. After reading your post again today I find a lot of what you said and your racist generalizations are very insulting to me and I'm sure other Americans on this forum. You seem to have plenty of contradictions in your post not to mention talking in circles out the side of your neck about issues you seem to have little knowledge of. You know what baffles me is how someone from another country can ridicule and condemn another country and their views without being in their shoes. I asked you if you and your country were willing to give up your jobs, homes, your money and savings and your children's future to support illegals so they can have what you call their right to liberty and go where they want to go? I got no answer. Are you and your country willing to make the same sacrifices as a lot of Americans are doing? If so I hope you have an extra 20 million jobs, willing to drop your pay scale in 1/2, lot's of diapers, plenty of free beds at your hospitals, willing to take away your child's future, lose your house, a very large savings account and can learn to press one for English.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

This is the problem I have with any illegal immigration, be it from Mexico, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, or Mars. I am happy with my culture and I do not want it to be taken from me. I am happy to share my state with immigrants from anywhere, as long as they are happy to accept that they are the ones who moved here; I did not go there. It was their decision, and as such it is their responsibility to adapt to my culture, not my responsibility to adapt to whatever cultural norms someone wants to bring with them.


What I tell you now is that my culture is indeed such: I will defend myself vigorously against a thief who does not ask nor acknowledge my ownership of my land, and gladly aid those who do. I will not change my culture as long as I live here. I will expect those who come here to adapt to it. Now, if you wish to define such as 'hate', then so be it. I call it 'respect'.


This is where your entire argument falls down. Our 'culture' in America is based on our Constitution. When immigrants come in (legal immigrants) they are necessarily bringing in different cultures with them. But then they become American citizens, and as such, will use their ancestry and culture to make decisions for the country - i.e., through voting. And that is the most American way - your Southern hospitality way is yes, a part of the culture of the current people who legally inhabit the Southern part of the United States. But the culture of the US was not supposed to be determined by who has lived here before, it is supposed to be determined by whoever legally lives here now. That is what the OP is trying to say, is that colonialism is making Americans worry about their fellow Americans, who are NOT white and European, voting and enacting policies that are different from the current cultures.

But I'll repeat: it's not about what was legally here before, but about who is legally here now. It's about whoever is legally here now voting to elect representatives to make decisions. It is about whoever is legally here now freely expressing speech, religion, petitioning government, bearing arms, having fair trials, and all sorts of other wonderful things which current legal Americans are allowed to enjoy. And that is why your argument fails - because it's simply Euro-centric and fails to consider the fact that it is whoever legally lives here and votes here who decides what the American culture 'should' be.

And if the majority of Americans are of Mexican descent sometime in the near future? Then it follows that our policies should reflect that, and it won't bother me, a white woman with descendants related to Queen Elizabeth the First, in the least.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 12:45 PM
I am not terrified of any of the above thank you very much. What I dislike however is the refusal of certain cultures to assimilate and their attempts to re-create Britain in their own image. It's not just 'white British' who are concerned about this. Attempts to label this concern as 'racist; won't wash, sorry.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:58 PM
So do you intentionally breed irresponsibly for the sake your vote will eventually be a majority and you will have power, regardless of the detriment it has on your race, country and mankind in general? With the amount of minorities it would take, to take over the current majority in the US, you will eventually find just as much division and chaos with in your own race, as what you have criticized others for, given time. It's the way it is. I don't see Mexico getting a long to well, does it change the further North you go?

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Where I have a problem is with those who make no effort to assimilate despite an intent to remain indefinitely. Those immigrants are not legal; in order to get permission to remain indefinitely, they have to pass certain requirements that indicate their willingness to do so. And if someone is living here without government approval...

...they have already broken the law.

mkay, as you might know there are tons of immigrants in the US that have never assimilated, yet are perfectly legal. Russian community for example. there are a lot of people that immigrated from USSR in the 70s for political reasons and there are many of them who still virtually live in former Soviet Union. Me-No-Speako-English mentality reins supreme in that community. most recent immigrants, namely mail-order brides are almost the same. not all of them, but many.
the reverse to this is also true- for example, a lot of those eligible for Dream Act are no different from a red-blooded, God-fearing Murikan. you couldn't tell they hold no legal docs just by looking at them or talking to them as opposed to a Russian mail bride speaking with super thick accent, if that and flashing her Green Card left and right.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by spacekc929

My post was addressing illegal immigration; your reply addresses legal immigration. The two are completely different.

I will also disagree with the Constitution being the cause of the culture, The culture existed before the Constitution, so the culture has to be the cause of the Constitution, not vice-versa. I will, however, admit that since its inception, the Constitution has affected the culture, but primarily by cementing those very beliefs you enumerate in your post. As such, the Constitution has served to maintain the cultural aspects our founding fathers considered most important.

If you will read the rest of my posts, you will see that I acknowledge cultural evolution over time, especially in a nation comprised of immigrants. Yet, I maintain that sudden changes to the indigenous culture are akin to an invasion and as such are morally wrong, especially when such 'invaders' do so illegally according to the laws in place at the time.


posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by delicatessen

Are we talking about legal residents or naturalized citizens?

A legal resident is someone who has that infamous 'green card', a visa, or other permission to reside within the United States. They are not citizens and are not eligible to vote. As far as I am concerned, they should not be eligible for government benefits either. They are still citizens of their respective countries, but are allowed here to enjoy the benefits of the country temporarily - not to sponge off the country. they are also eligible at any time to have their residency privileges revoked and be returned to their own country (deported).

This includes political refugees seeking asylum.

Naturalized citizens are full citizens of the United States with all the rights thereto enumerated in the Constitution (with the one exception that they cannot serve as President, nor hold any office that could lead to such service). In order to be naturalized, the United States requires the following:

To be eligible for naturalization under section 316(a) of the INA, an applicant must:
  • Be 18 or older
  • Be a permanent resident (green card holder) for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
  • Have lived within the state, or USCIS district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence, for at least 3 months prior to the date of filing the application
  • Have continuous residence in the United States as a permanent resident for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of the filing the application
  • Be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application
  • Reside continuously within the United States from the date of application for naturalization up to the time of naturalization
  • Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).
  • Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law

    Formatting mine to reflect original layout
    Emphasis mine

Those immigrants you mention are here at the mercy of the United States. They are not here to become citizens, but to escape persecution. If they do not "speaka-de-engeesh", they are probably political refugees; they are not able to do business with the indigenous culture, and this is their decision. They have segregated themselves in a self-imposed exile.

Should they wish to be a part of the United States, then they will have to make adjustments. I do not have to make adjustments to allow them to do so.

The mail order brides, as well, are not naturalized citizens. They do not always speak English, but in order to become American citizens they will have to learn. The accent is irrelevant, as long as they can communicate. Nothing I have said states that I believe only people who look like me or act like me should be allowed to come and be part of America... I only say they must make the effort to be American. If that means they die at a ripe old age of natural causes speaking with a heavy accent, so be it. At least they tried to become what they wanted to become. That I can respect and accept.

Anything less is irresponsible, and irresponsibility is unacceptable.


posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:56 PM
I just fail to see how anyone can support illegal immigration, honestly you must live in some fantasy land if you think this is a good idea..... The whole thing about taking our jobs is very real and it's crushing our economy to pieces... I take it though a lot of people don't actually realize how the economy works..

So lets say your average law breaking illegal comes over here and works for a company, 1 American person has just lost a position, therefore they are out of money... Now all these Americans who used to have money to buy the products these companies produce have lost their jobs...

Now the average illegal is sending their money to Mexico and the company is seeing a drop in business (hmm wonder why?).. The people who used to buy what they're selling can't afford to anymore and their answer to this is hire more illegals at cheaper wages and drive the cost of their product up, thus sending our economy into a downward spiral.... I don't know if this is exactly what's happening but when I had the thought it made a lot of sense to me......
edit on 22-12-2010 by jheated5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

my post above was in relation to this:

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Where I have a problem is with those who make no effort to assimilate despite an intent to remain indefinitely. Those immigrants are not legal; in order to get permission to remain indefinitely, they have to pass certain requirements that indicate their willingness to do so. And if someone is living here without government approval...


it`s possible to be legal as in someone who came through legal channels and be un-assimlated. temporary status vs naturalized citizenship talk is irrelevant here.
edit on 22-12-2010 by delicatessen because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by delicatessen

And the post you quote me in was in response to a long discussion with Mr. Burlap concerning people who immigrate and then try to change the laws. No one who is not a naturalized citizen may vote; therefore the small minority of immigrants who are here on political asylum rather than an intention to become American is a moot subject in the ongoing discussion between us.

It is very easy to read one line of a multi-page discussion and find fault with it. The MSM do it all the time.

All I am saying is that I value my heritage and my culture, and that I see illegal or malicious immigration, from any outside area, as being a danger to the existence of that heritage and culture. That does not make me racist; it makes me proud of who I am.

Do you have a problem with that?


posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:07 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

i understand your standpoint in relation to this subject. i am not a nitpicker, but when you are talking about such topics it is really important to be factual. it`s ok on entertainment boards like this, but much too often seemingly minor details slip through public attention, buried under heavy rhetoric. that said i dont have anything against how you feel about your heritage which i never attacked in the first place.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by delicatessen

"All I am saying is that I value my heritage and my culture, and that I see illegal or malicious immigration, from any outside area, as being a danger to the existence of that heritage and culture. That does not make me racist; it makes me proud of who I am.

Do you have a problem with that?


You can't make this chit up, thats how I feel about it too.
Great Av by the way redneck.. RIP

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:26 PM
Your whole premise that people (in all their colors) against illegal immigration of "terrified" of Latinos, blacks, etc. is racist and wrong so there is little sense in addressing this leftist race screed.

Why do I get the impression that you have not ever discussed the issue with anyone who does not agree with you? Globalism is not a morally superior, non-racist ideology. It is an ideology of serfdom and elitist oppressoin. The people you are addressing are Americans, attached to the constitution and it's way of life which is a chapter of history you happened to leave out of your screed but something you need to study about.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by delicatessen

Yes, it is important to be factual; that is why I posted the USCIS info earlier when I realized you were looking at a statement out of context. However, in most discussions insignificant details can be omitted for clarity. In this case, I do not state that the political refugees are insignificant, but that their contribution to the immigration problem is insignificant. They cannot vote, they are self-sequestered from the mainstream society, and thus they pose no threat to anyone. I believe it behooves the USA as a whole that we provide such a safe haven for those who need it.

Illegal immigration in uncontrolled numbers, on the other hand, does pose a serious threat to any culture which happens to be in the way of the influx. I have friends form South Texas who have witnessed first-hand the destruction of entire communities due to the crime and mayhem created by some of these illegal Mexicans. Without some sort of filter system in place, which is actually the primary purpose of the Immigration Department, the door is wide open not only to those seeking a better life, but to those who are seeking a safe haven from work and productivity as well as criminals and, yes, terrorists.

And just ask the fine folks in NYC how terrorists just want to be part of the USA and exercise their rights...


posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:13 PM
Did you miss this post or are you avoiding it? I think it deserves an answer.

Originally posted by RRokkyy
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)

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

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by Maslo

But even in that case, you still have not provided any reason why restricting immigration is against liberty as you define it

Yes I did. Immigration restriction goes against freedom of movement.

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.
Evidently they cannot enforce it. If they could, then there wouldn't be any illegal immigrants.

Now, my point in the OP as it relates to the conflict between collectives and individuals is this. The Revolution was grounded on the principle of individual liberty. There are those few who benefit from 'hoarding' liberty for themselves. They are counter-revolutionaries who deny that famous credo, All Men Are Created Equal. They seek to preserve liberty, as much liberty as possible, for themselves and their clique of elites. They seek to deny liberty to anyone else. They promote and promulgate ideologies of collectivism in order to herd the public and use them as a tool in the service of elitism. They use nationalism in order to separate the public from their cousins around the world. They propagate screeds against diversity, multiculturalism, immigration, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of conscience, among others.

It is in their best interests to brainwash the naive public into becoming nationalists and collectivists and chauvinists so that the public will maintain the political system that keeps them enslaved. It is absolutely their goal to make the public think like almost everybody in this thread so that the Spirit of the Revolution will grow sick and die. They want State-worship to replace individuality. They want fascism to become popular. They want humanism to curl up and die. They are anti-enlightenment, anti-liberty; anti-life.

Who are they? The group that most on ATS call the Illuminati, but I just refer to them as those members of the privileged upper class that intend to stay on top forever.

Am I actually an anarchist? When the mood strikes me. I have adopted this attitude in this thread as a rhetorical tool, to try and remind ATSers of the meaning of liberty; not some freedom for some people, but absolute freedom for all people. My subsequent post will deal with the Hobbesian resistance to the Revolution.
edit on 22-12-2010 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:46 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Human nature, left alone to its own devices, is greedy, destructive, and self-defeating.

If there were no laws, would you go on a murder-rape-theft spree? It's human nature, after all!

As I said in the OP, I am critical of anyone who thinks that human beings are brutal and vicious by nature. The obvious objection is that if human nature really was greedy, destructive and self-defeating, it would never have produced law. It would never have produced discipline and self-control, it would never act according to conscience, it would never feel empathy for other human beings, it would never hold itself to any standards. Yet it is plain as day that many people, most people, have some measure of all of these. I am an optimist; I do not assume that, without law, human beings would become savage beasts.

As mnemeth1 points out in the excellent thread Laws Do Not Work, it is not the state that keeps criminals in check but the threat of civilian vigilance. I add that conscience prevents us from committing crimes against one another, not the fact that it is illegal. We do not need to be told that murder is illegal to want not to murder someone. We value human life and so choose not to kill others.

I don't really know how else to say it. Would you go on a crime spree if the laws were abolished tomorrow? Or would you feel guilty for doing so?

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:52 PM
reply to post by RRokkyy

I don't really think it's a problem. America's carrying capacity is increasing all the time, sometimes by inches and sometimes by leaps and bounds. In 100 years, the current population of 310 Americans will be mostly dead; 300 million immigrants will assure that this population is replaced, and the natural birth rate, which is currently below 2 children per woman, will grow the population a little more.

Moreover, I am certain that most immigrant families will shrink over the generations. You are assuming that every generation of immigrants will have the same birth rate as their parents, but this does not seem to be the case. My grandmother came from a family of ten children; her parents were British immigrants at the turn of the last century. She and her siblings had an average of two children each. Their children had an average of two children each, if they had children at all. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but you may know an immigrant family with a similar history. Each generation of the family that is born in the New Country is more familiar with the customs and traditions of the New Country than the old; I have only a vague awareness of the Home Island, gleaned mostly from television. I certainly have no desire to raise a large family, it would get in the way of my decadent Western lifestyle.

Trends in immigration can change over time, as well. If the economy declines, as anti-immigration rhetors claim it will, then there will be less incentive for migrants to come to America. They may travel along the NAFTA transport corridor (coming soon!) into Canada, or they may travel into booming Brazil, or they may travel to Russia or China or India seeking work. Migrant labourers go where the money is, because that's where the private citizens are most prepared to hire on new employees.
edit on 22-12-2010 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:25 PM
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Anyone who believes humans are not vicious and brutal by nature is fooling themselves. Any prison, any inner-city, or any playground will tell you differently if you only look. Some of us were fortunate enough to have the morality instilled in us when we were young, but many were not.

Do you think Charles Manson would have not killed had there been no laws against killing? Do you believe Jeffrey Dalmer would not have murdered had there been no laws against it? Do you believe either of them would have stopped voluntarily if they had not been caught and incarcerated? Our prisons are full of people who regularly break the most basic of laws... murder, rape, armed robbery... and yet you say that they are not inherently violent?

Go to a school playground when the teacher's back is turned. Watch the bully picking on the skinny kid, Watch as he exercises this instinctive moral conviction you propose he has, by kicking, hitting, or shoving him. Might makes right, correct?

Ask any person with a malicious supervisor how kind humans are by nature. Ask anyone who works in a complaint department how nice people are by nature. Ask anyone in the middle of a holiday sale how caring and polite people are.

Most humans will ultimately seek out their own self-interests, before giving a single thought to anyone else. How many stories do we hear about someone dying in a pool of blood on the street while people step over them on their way to whatever they want to do?

Conscience plays a huge role, yes, in maintaining society. Perhaps you would not go on a rampage without laws; perhaps I would not. But many would. And I will freely admit that if confronted with a deadly situation, I would have no problem returning deadly force to protect myself, my family, or my home - law or no law. If there were no laws, however, I would be required to do this much more often.

Civilian vigilance will become civilian vigilante-ism if left unchecked. History is full of examples; the French Revolution comes to mind for some reason. The riots after the acquittal of police accused of beating Rodney King in Los Angeles also come to mind. In those, a truck driver who had nothing to do with either the riots or the acquittal was seriously injured by a screaming mob of rioters. I would hardly call that action civilized.

I am somewhat confused, however. You said earlier that you believed might made right so far as property rights go, now you indicate that people do not follow such a barbaric notion. It would seem you are constantly shifting your position... could you clarify exactly what it is you believe as to the topic of this discussion?


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in