why we should oppose borders

[Organic Revolution]

-Borders only exist for the poor. For foreign elites it is relatively easy to migrate to the US. For poor people the country is off limits.

-At the point on the map where the US and Mexico meet, there is for all practical purposes a border that is only one sided. That is, Anyone can pass freely into Mexico, but only those with “citizenship” can pass into the US.

-For the rich, for corporations and for capital, borders don't exist. While the rhetoric of freedom and liberty is thrown around regularly we actually take these things seriously. We are all subject to innumerable controls in our daily lives, but millions of people in this country have been stripped of the right to exist, their very being deemed illegal. This is an abomination.

- Furthermore, immigration controls, like other forms of racism, create a class of people who have less rights and are more precarious in the living and working situations. Having such a class of people at hand only serves to make all people more likely to have less rights, as well as to divide people with the threat of putting them into such a class. Think Apartheid, but this time poor whites and African American’s are pitted against poor migrants so that everyone loses except corporations and a handful of folks at the top.

- European immigrants who stole this land 150 years ago through genocidal aggression would like everyone to forget the history of this land and its peoples. They would like to write-out this controversial history of racism, aggression and the resistance to it. Erecting borders and hiding behind so-called morally neutral laws, written and enforced by a government built upon this shameful history does not obscure basic moral questions about the way we treat other human beings.

Migrant people are subject to beatings, detention for years without trial and deportation, often splitting and destroying families forever. And while the privileged amongst us cross through the turnstiles at the port of entry, more then 3300 people have died, and tens of thousands have been incapacitated crossing through the deserts to get to this side of the
line.

- We take very serious the belief that every human being is inherently equal, valuable and deserving of rights. Borders, “citizenship” and migration controls are a means of saying that one person is more valuable and deserving of rights, and dignity than another person. And not only is it a way of saying some people are more valuable, it is a way to justify and give license to the cruel exploitation and gagging of millions of people.

And lets be very clear. To willfully ignore all of this or to say that it is acceptable because people had a choice to migrate is disgusting, immoral and inaccurate.

When discussing migration, often the most bigotted and ignorant thoughts come to the minds of U.S.ers - invasion and disease, joblessness and a loss of culture. People cannot understand our desire to tear down the border they so mistakenly think keeps them safe. "They would all move here." or "It would destroy the country" as well as other ideas loaded with similar racism and xenophobia surface in the public language.

As equally powerful as the physical wall, is the symbolic or psychological significance of the border. For many in the U.S., the wall is a point at which the great other, all that is bad and out of control can be kept out. Hundreds of millions of people, including many people in the organic collective, have a very different experience. There is no validity to the claims made by many border vigilantes that they are stopping terrorism at the border. The border, to the millions who have encountered it, is terrorism.

Migrant people bring money into our economy, they do not drain the economy, as the common misconception holds. Here is a good study explaining it.

As Anarchists, we want Autonomy and Freedom. What kind of Freedom and Autonomy do people have if they don't have Freedom of Movement and the Right to Stay? How free are people if they can't choose where they want to live?

We are working to create a world without borders or war. We are
working for a world of self-governed communities, based on mutual aid and human dignity, which are more democratic and humane than the nations we see today which are built on genocide and protected by fences, hired killers and guns.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yes, as people who fight for world socialism we should oppose borders and nationalism.

That's my big problem with the Scottish Socialist Party at the moment. They have a very reactionary position of demanding that socltand be indpeendant.

And say that the only way to build socialism is too make scotland independant first.

[Rasta Sapian]

ya man, fight the power, I live on the US Canada Border, immigration is good for the local economies, unity, and promotes diversity. Check out this link to the local Beehive collective. peace

http://www.beehivecollective.org/PDF/narra...ive-english.pdf (http://www.beehivecollective.org/PDF/narratives/FTAA_narrative-english.pdf)

[which doctor]

Borders are just restrictions that get in the way of life. Good people don't want them.


Go away borders!

[patrickbeverley]

I'm not sure about "no borders" but we definitely need less immigration restrictions. Making the assumption that you guys are all posting from the USA, I can tell you it's just as bad in Britain, largely because of the image promoted by a handful of rightwing newspapers that seem to each print at least one headline a week about terrible things that immigrants or "asylum seekers" have allegedly been doing. They paint a picture of immigrant "spongers" freeloading benefits and not trying to find work, whereas in fact a tiny percentage of immigrants actually receive benefits and the group as a whole contribute more in tax than they receive. Doesn't sound like sponging to me.

If the government wants to save money, they could do worse than abandoning plans to build detention centres in which to imprison immigrants without charge.

[Led Zeppelin]

-Borders only exist for the poor.

The bourgeois (and upper classes in general) created borders in the first place, they do not "only exist for the poor".

By your logic Hitler was a poor bastard when he started to invade other nations.

[Master Che]

If the US never stole and screwed Mexico and many other Latin american nation's in the first place. Those immigrents wouldent of needed to cross the US border.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 15 2005, 11:43 AM

-Borders only exist for the poor.

The bourgeois (and upper classes in general) created borders in the first place, they do not "only exist for the poor".

By your logic Hitler was a poor bastard when he started to invade other nations.
but it is alot harder for the poor to be able to cross borders, it is very easy for the rich to cross.

[Andy Bowden]

Whats wrong with Scottish Independence?

Why is it when Scotland makes its demands for self-determination, it is "creating borders" but when Puerto Rico or other nations fight for independence it is supported by Socialists?

The reality is, an independent Scotland would be far more open to immigrants than the British State. Scotland has a falling populace and as such has no interest in continuing the British States anti-immigrant campaign.

[drain.you]

As I've thought for a long time, we are people of the world, not people of particular pieces of land. Borders divide people, and nationalism more so.

[Led Zeppelin]

but it is alot harder for the poor to be able to cross borders, it is very easy for the rich to cross.

That's because the rich usually have passports and the money to buy a ticket, while the poor do not, that doesn't mean that borders don't exist for them, they won't get into another nation without a passport, just like everyone else.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 15 2005, 09:28 PM
The reality is, an independent Scotland would be far more open to immigrants than the British State. Scotland has a falling populace and as such has no interest in continuing the British States anti-immigrant campaign.
Aye, I read in New Scientist that Scotland has one of the most tolerant immigration policies in the world. They have a governement ministry set up to encourage immigration and students can stay far longer. Scotland is now attracting more Chinese students than the USA is, I also read.

Scotland's existence as a Nation is practically a fact. She has far more progressive laws than England, and if she were completely independent, she would most likely raise living standards there as the 26 county Irish state did. Scotland having its own state would not be reactionary, imo, because it would simply be a recognition of reality and of the diverse conditions that are distinct from England.

[PRC-UTE]

Although the original document Organic Revolution posted is obviously dealing with a North American context, I would encourage people here to support the reunification of Ireland and the removal of the British imposed border that divides our country. The island of Ireland doesn't need a border through it and it should be eliminated to help end the sectarianism that divides our class. Support Irish Republican Socialists in their efforts!

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 25 2005, 04:06 PM

but it is alot harder for the poor to be able to cross borders, it is very easy for the rich to cross.

That's because the rich usually have passports and the money to buy a ticket, while the poor do not, that doesn't mean that borders don't exist for them, they won't get into another nation without a passport, just like everyone else.
I'm pretty sure that's what OR meant. Not everything is to be taken literally.

If you want to be really literal, borders don't exist at all. Arbitrary imaginary lines.

Great post OR btw. It applies to Australia in many ways.

Our migration laws favour economic migration and effectively exclude the poor. There are also racial overtones; wih the government talking about national identity and all that. Australians find it a lot easier to go live and work in Pacific countries, but if people from the region want to work here they are subject to very stringent guidelines. They are "guest workers," low paid, often unskilled workers. They do low paid jobs and then leave...

And let's not get started on policy regarding asylum seekers. :angry:

[RaiseYourVoice]

I agree great post, i just recently had a discussion bout that in my politics class, well till now i am the only one there to totally oppose any form of borders but we'll see about that in a couple of years maybe we managed to change somethings till than

[Commie Rat]

From a stratigic point of view dividing the capitalist countries into many differnet ones could work to our advantage. but in the commune no borders are nessicary

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:11 PM
If the US never stole and screwed Mexico and many other Latin american nation's in the first place. Those immigrents wouldent of needed to cross the US border.
Without a doubt!

From personal experience, Latin America is nothing but misery as a result of America's exploitation and imperialism

The majority of Latin America's puppets are put in place by America, and their only concern is to protect American interests
That is why Mexico has more immigrants coming in, than Cuba does
Fox is concerned with American interests and he disregards the poverty that America creates as a result of their involvement
^And the same can be said for almost all the other Latin American countries

And now, Latin immigrants are under attack by the Minute Men and other gov bigots
Last time I went to Los Angeles, immigration was rounding up Latino's like they were a herd of cattle - and they were being sent back
^
Their crime: making a living to help out their family

One day, we will rise, and destroy those who oppress us :angry:

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm pretty sure that's what OR meant. Not everything is to be taken literally.

Literal words are not to be taken literally?


If you want to be really literal, borders don't exist at all. Arbitrary imaginary lines.

Those "Arbitrary imaginary lines" exist don't they? So how can they not exist when you "want to be really literal"?

[Redanny]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 9 2005, 12:05 PM
Yes, as people who fight for world socialism we should oppose borders and nationalism.

That's my big problem with the Scottish Socialist Party at the moment. They have a very reactionary position of demanding that socltand be indpeendant.

And say that the only way to build socialism is too make scotland independant first.
Just because the scottish socialist party (and i) believe Scotland should be independant, it doesnt mean we have to have borders.

[bolshevik butcher]

What do you suggest then?

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 9 2005, 12:05 PM
That's my big problem with the Scottish Socialist Party at the moment. They have a very reactionary position of demanding that socltand be indpeendant.

And say that the only way to build socialism is too make scotland independant first.
So demanding independence from an imperialist power is reactionary?

And I think Marx said in the Manifesto that the proletariat from each country need to be united nationally before they can be united internationally. If I remember correctly, he used the example of the Poland being under Russian rule.

[bolshevik butcher]

An imperialist power only to create another one...

The latest suggestion they've come out is towork with the pro-indpendance beugoiurse parties, which is thrnankly ridiculous.

[Chuck]

Destroying physical borders is not where it should stop. It might be a beginning perhaps, but there are bigger and harder to break borders of racial prejudice.

[poster_child]

This thread reminds me of a wicked anti-flag song:

Tearing down the borders

No one flag flies over the multi-national company.
No allegiance to the board's homeland, fellow citizens, the flag born of their country.
As the brainwashed nationalists move,
To shed their blood on battle fields.
War profiteering rich watch their stocks reap high yields.

We're tearing down the borders!
We're fighting for the rights of freedom!

No patriotic pledge from multi-national companies.
Only a commitment to lock away equality and steal away all freedom from the poorest of the poor.
So that the boardroom can insure
their stockholders profits are higher in return.

We're tearing down the borders!
We're fighting for the rights of freedom!

It's our world. Let's take it back!
Let's set ourselves free.
It's our world. Let's take it back!
Let's set ourselves free.
It's our world. We want it back!
Let's set ourselves free.
It's your world. Take your world back!

Take it, fucking back.

There's a call
A ringing sound
Around the globe
Its gaining ground
We're tearing down the borders.

There's a voice in your heart
It beckons you to do your part
We're tearing down the borders!

The line is drawn
In the sand
On one side your a slave
The other a free man
We're tearing down the borders, oh oh!
There's a call
Freedom's sound
Around the globe
Its gaining ground!
We're tearing down the border

[rioters bloc]

mmmm 'the terror state', am i right?

[Black Dagger]

Literal words are not to be taken literally?

What are you talking about? No one said anything about 'literal words'- but Mujer did say that not all words are meant to be taken literally. What that means is that sometimes sentences mean something different or imply something else with a specific context- than strictly what would be gleaned from reading the sentence on the face of it. In most cases it is assumed that the reader would 'pick up on' this non-stated context- you did not...

When OR said that the 'Borders only exist for the poor'- he did not mean literally that rich people just wander from country to country as if there was no borders, he meant- well exactly what he said in the sentence that followed this initial statement... "For foreign elites it is relatively easy to migrate to the US. For poor people the country is off limits."



Those "Arbitrary imaginary lines" exist don't they?

In a lot of places, no they don't- because they're 'imagined' lines- you can see physical manifestations of a border, ie. border patrols or a cross-point. I can't say i'm aware of any place that has their border marked out on the earth in a big white line or something, some countries have walled borders, but most do not. You're reading her statement too literally... again.



So how can they not exist when you "want to be really literal"?

Why are you being so pedantic/difficult?

[Led Zeppelin]

When OR said that the 'Borders only exist for the poor'- he did not mean literally that rich people just wander from country to country as if there was no borders, he meant- well exactly what he said in the sentence that followed this initial statement... "For foreign elites it is relatively easy to migrate to the US. For poor people the country is off limits."


Yes, and I said that it is not "relatively easy to migrate to the US for foreign elites", if they have no passport they will not get in, the same for the poor.


In a lot of places, no they don't- because they're 'imagined' lines- you can see physical manifestations of a border, ie. border patrols or a cross-point. I can't say i'm aware of any place that has their border marked out on the earth in a big white line or something, some countries have walled borders, but most do not. You're reading her statement too literally... again.


They might not exist to the individual person at some places, but they do exist to other nations and classes, the "foreign elites" are a class.


Why are you being so pedantic/difficult?

I'm not, I'm being logical.

[Black Dagger]

Yes, and I said that it is not "relatively easy to migrate to the US for foreign elites", if they have no passport they will not get in, the same for the poor.

Yes it is easy for the rich to migrate- because foreign elites have no problems getting passports- your point about passports really doesn't go that far. Moreover,
It is not so easy for poorer people to obtain the documents necessary (to get the correct photos made etc.). In some countries this may require bribery-which a poorer person may not be able to afford. And here's the real kicker, it's much harder for a person with few to no 'skills'/tertiary education, and little to no money behind them- to just fly/travel around- country to country. It's harder to get visas if you're poor, and not tertiary-educated- in fact it's virtually impossible to migrate to many countries if you are in said situation- the exception being if you could qualify for 'family reunion' or perhaps refuge on humanitarian grounds.


They might not exist to the individual person at some places, but they do exist to other nations and classes, the "foreign elites" are a class.

I don't understand your point- entirely.

Borders may not exist to individuals in some contexts, but borders do exist to other nations and classes- ok- so are you implying that there some classes (i.e. the WC) face discrimination when the question of borders comes up? If so, then that is precisely what OR, Mujer Libre- and I have been saying... in that case i'm sure you mean something else :P

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes it is easy for the rich to migrate- because foreign elites have no problems getting passports- your point about passports really doesn't go that far.

Every person has a passport by definition, it's as easy for a "foreign elite" to get one as it is for a local farmer.

The term "foreign elite" is wrong in the first place, since it does matter from which nation this "foreign elite" comes from, if it's a "foreign elite" from, let's say, Zimbabwe, they do have more chance of getting to the US than the local peasant has, but if it's a "foreign elite" from a western-European nation, they have as much chance of getting to the US as any other "normal citizen" there has.

OR's sentence would have been correct if he had said "foreign elites from underdeveloped Capitalist nations" (or "third world" nations), instead of just "foreign elites", because that's basically false.


Moreover,
It is not so easy for poorer people to obtain the documents necessary (to get the correct photos made etc.).

The state pays for that here, and if I recall correctly also in the EU.


In some countries this may require bribery-which a poorer person may not be able to afford.

Yes, in some nations, most certainly not in all nations.


And here's the real kicker, it's much harder for a person with few to no 'skills'/tertiary education, and little to no money behind them- to just fly/travel around- country to country.

I'm sure the average middle class person who lives in the EU (and is apart of the majority of the population) can afford a plane ticket to the US, if not they can take a loan, just as easily as the "foreign elite" could.

But then again, you don't consider the average middle class person living in the EU to be "poor", right? If not, then why are you defending the statement of OR in which he said that all foreign elites can get into the US with ease while the "average person" can't.


It's harder to get visas if you're poor, and not tertiary-educated- in fact it's virtually impossible to migrate to many countries if you are in said situation- the exception being if you could qualify for 'family reunion' or perhaps refuge on humanitarian grounds.


Sure, it's harder to get visa's and pay for a ticket if you're poor, what does that have to do with borders not existing for the "foreign elites"? Is the entire western-European middle class a "foreign elite", since they can afford a visa and ticket?


Borders may not exist to individuals in some contexts, but borders do exist to other nations and classes- ok- so are you implying that there some classes (i.e. the WC) face discrimination when the question of borders comes up?

Depends from which country this working class is from of course, if it's the working class of Zimbabwe then the answer is yes, if it's the working class of western-Europe then it's no.

That is the difference between me and OR, he just says "foreign elite" without taking into consideration the differences between "foreign elites".

[Mujer Libre]

Every person has a passport by definition, it's as easy for a "foreign elite" to get one as it is for a local farmer.
What? Maybe where you're from. Here, and in many other countries you have to apply, it takes a few months and costs a few hundred dollars, which many people don't have.


The term "foreign elite" is wrong in the first place, since it does matter from which nation this "foreign elite" comes from, if it's a "foreign elite" from, let's say, Zimbabwe, they do have more chance of getting to the US than the local peasant has, but if it's a "foreign elite" from a western-European nation, they have as much chance of getting to the US as any other "normal citizen" there has.
We're talking about migration here, I think you missed that. An unskilled labourer from Western Europe who doesn't speak any English or have any qualifications would have a hard time migrating to the US or Australia.

However, even if you have no skills, no English but you have lots of money, guess what; it's more likely than not you CAN.

And of course it depends on what country you're from but it's not like everyone from the EU can just waltz into any country they like and settle down.


Sure, it's harder to get visa's and pay for a ticket if you're poor, what does that have to do with borders not existing for the "foreign elites"? Is the entire western-European middle class a "foreign elite", since they can afford a visa and ticket?
This is ridiculous. Surely you can see that BD was not putting every human being in two camps; wealthy elite (defined by the ability to travel by air) and poor (those who can't).

And the fact that it is that much easier for very wealthy people (yes, even compared to middle class people) to travel means that borders exist for them to a lesser extent.

[Led Zeppelin]

What? Maybe where you're from.

Yes, if you don't have a passport here you are "illegal".

In other words, no insurance, no work, no nothing.


We're talking about migration here, I think you missed that. An unskilled labourer from Western Europe who doesn't speak any English or have any qualifications would have a hard time migrating to the US or Australia.


The majority of people here do speak English and do have "skills".


However, even if you have no skills, no English but you have lots of money, guess what; it's more likely than not you CAN.


Sentence doesn't make sense, rephrase.


And of course it depends on what country you're from but it's not like everyone from the EU can just waltz into any country they like and settle down.


Yes it is like that, every person who earns minimum wage can.

[poster_child]

mmmm 'the terror state', am i right

Yep.. one of the best records of all time. That song basically sums up this thread.

[upstanding conservative]

Border's are one of the many thing's that define a nation to eliminate border's alltogether would be insane for many reasons.With the elimination of border's comes the elimination of english as the common language,the elimination of our culture to a internationalist culture and anyone can enter the country includeing covicted criminals and terrorist that want to harm us.The flood of illegals into this country is a problem as well that neither political side wants to do anything about.The far left wants everyone to come here so they can take care of them at taxpayer expence and to further there socialist agenda.The far right wants everyone here so they can exploit illegals for labor at cheap wages.Both sides are wrong and are not looking out for the interest of american citizens.
With illegal aliens willing to work for the cheaper wages it keeps everyones wages down.The high cost of healthcare is also a result of illegal aliens rapeing hospitals in border states.No nation on earth besides the united states permits illegal aliens to come into the country get treatment at hospitals at our expence(while jumping ahead of u.s. citizens in the waiting room)and afterwards just go back to there country till the next time they get sick or need treatment.The social cost to taxpayer"s are take takeing it's toll on us.WHAT KIND OF A COUNTRY IS THIS WHERE A ILLEGAL ALIEN CAN COME IN RECIEVE WELFARE WHILE POPPING CHILDREN OUT OF THE OVEN ONE AFTER ANOTHER AND RECIEVE MORE BENIFUTS AS A RESULT!No other country on earth permits an illegal alien in the immigration van being deported that pops out a child before the border is crossed for that child to be a u.s. citizen.How we deal with illegal aliens is extremely light and not tough enough.
The biggest lie of our time is that they all come here to work.Some come here to work but some come here to work the system.It is a slap in the face to legal immigrants that did what they had to do to be citizens to permit this anything go's nonsence with illegals.They broke the law and any form of amnesty would be awarding illegal behavior like if you got arrested for stealing and when you went to court instead of going to jail the judge gave you a check.It is insane and it makes no sence.Especially in a post 911 world to do nothing to guard the border is just asking for another terrorist attack to ocour.Terrorist see our loose borders as a weakness and will exploit that to reach there goal of mass murder.Groups like the ACLU encourage this by fighting all border enforcement and deportation under civil rights.It is no ones civil right to break the law.Border laws are not against the constitution or the bill of rights and if you entered the country illegaly you are not granted the rights of u.s. citizens.Ask any legal immigrant what they think of the problem with illegals that said f--- the law and now act as if there equal to everyone else here.The legal immigrant despices this because they worked hard to come here legally.Border controll is important and should be enforced.

[PRC-UTE]

pure lies and bullshit. I have total disgust for this 'Murica is the only nation' shite.

The term 'illegal alien' isn't even neutral to begin with, you fucking idiot.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 08:30 AM
Border's are one of the many thing's that define a nation to eliminate border's alltogether would be insane for many reasons.With the elimination of border's comes the elimination of english as the common language,the elimination of our culture to a internationalist culture and anyone can enter the country includeing covicted criminals and terrorist that want to harm us.

firstly, i don't see how it would bring about the elimination of english as a common language; secondly, what's the problem if it did? i also fail to see what 'culture' you're talking about - a consumerist one? you're pretty vague in your rhetoric.

and terrorist's don't necessarily need to migrate to a country to blow it up. nor do they even need to be from o'seas.


The flood of illegals into this country is a problem as well that neither political side wants to do anything about.The far left wants everyone to come here so they can take care of them at taxpayer expence and to further there socialist agenda.The far right wants everyone here so they can exploit illegals for labor at cheap wages.Both sides are wrong and are not looking out for the interest of american citizens.

the term citizens really bugs me. mainly because not only does it confer rights upon one group of people over another, but it's something which is 'inherited' and implies that basic human rights are something which are passed down like family heirlooms, or given through legislation. why should you, being born into a family of american citizens, be any more entitled to services in the community than someone who's travelled thousands of kilometres to get there, often in extreme hardship?


With illegal aliens willing to work for the cheaper wages it keeps everyones wages down.

the problem is that employers are willing to offer them work for cheaper wages because they know they'll probably take it in desparation.


The high cost of healthcare is also a result of illegal aliens rapeing hospitals in border states.No nation on earth besides the united states permits illegal aliens to come into the country get treatment at hospitals at our expence(while jumping ahead of u.s. citizens in the waiting room)and afterwards just go back to there country till the next time they get sick or need treatment.

where do you get your information? i'd be interested to see where you found out that they 'jump ahead' of us citizens in the waiting room.


The social cost to taxpayer"s are take takeing it's toll on us.WHAT KIND OF A COUNTRY IS THIS WHERE A ILLEGAL ALIEN CAN COME IN RECIEVE WELFARE WHILE POPPING CHILDREN OUT OF THE OVEN ONE AFTER ANOTHER AND RECIEVE MORE BENIFUTS AS A RESULT!

yes, because all ethnic people have lots of children, right?


The biggest lie of our time is that they all come here to work.Some come here to work but some come here to work the system.It is a slap in the face to legal immigrants that did what they had to do to be citizens to permit this anything go's nonsence with illegals.They broke the law and any form of amnesty would be awarding illegal behavior like if you got arrested for stealing and when you went to court instead of going to jail the judge gave you a check.It is insane and it makes no sence.Especially in a post 911 world to do nothing to guard the border is just asking for another terrorist attack to ocour.Terrorist see our loose borders as a weakness and will exploit that to reach there goal of mass murder.Groups like the ACLU encourage this by fighting all border enforcement and deportation under civil rights.It is no ones civil right to break the law.Border laws are not against the constitution or the bill of rights and if you entered the country illegaly you are not granted the rights of u.s. citizens.Ask any legal immigrant what they think of the problem with illegals that said f--- the law and now act as if there equal to everyone else here.The legal immigrant despices this because they worked hard to come here legally.Border controll is important and should be enforced.

i cant be fucked pointing out the fallacies and overt racism in the rest of the post. if there were no borders, there would be no such thing as 'legal' or 'illegal' immigration, and thus there would be no 'legal' immigrants to complain about the 'illegal' ones. also note, legal immigrants are often the ones with enough money and resources to migrate, and excluding people on the basis of their wealth is just ludicrous.

edit: screwed up tags, my bad

[Xvall]

With the elimination of border's comes the elimination of english as the common language,the elimination of our culture to a internationalist culture

English is not the United States' national language. The most commonly spoken language can change at any time, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.


and anyone can enter the country includeing covicted criminals and terrorist that want to harm us.

The United States does have borders, and people manage to do this anyways.


The flood of illegals into this country is a problem

Why?


as well that neither political side wants to do anything about.

Not true, though I wish it were so.


The far left wants everyone to come here so they can take care of them at taxpayer expence and to further there socialist agenda.

And the far right wants everyone already here to go to war at the taxpayer's expence and further their imperialistic agena. This doesn't sound like much of an argument, though. Accusing us of "taking care of people" isn't going to provoke much negative response.


The far right wants everyone here so they can exploit illegals for labor at cheap wages.

Probably true. I can't say for sure, as I'm not a far-rightist.


Both sides are wrong and are not looking out for the interest of american citizens.

No, we're looking out for the interest of everyone in the world. Americans aren't "worthy" of anything anyone else isn't. In fact, I would wager that most illegal immigrants are much harder workers than most Americans. Americans recieve special treatment simply by the priviledge of being born here.


With illegal aliens willing to work for the cheaper wages it keeps everyones wages down.

I thought that was the capitalist ethic? Someone wants to work for less, and agrees to do so, and so the manager hires them. Go free enterprise!


The high cost of healthcare is also a result of illegal aliens rapeing hospitals in border states.

Lmao.


The social cost to taxpayer"s are take takeing it's toll on us.

The majority of our taxes are not going to illegal immigrants. Very few of it is. You've probably never met an illegal immigrant, and unless you plan on selling fruit on the highway, they aren't "stealing your job". The taxes financing the war, however, are taking it's toll on us.


WHAT KIND OF A COUNTRY IS THIS WHERE A ILLEGAL ALIEN CAN COME IN RECIEVE WELFARE WHILE POPPING CHILDREN OUT OF THE OVEN ONE AFTER ANOTHER AND RECIEVE MORE BENIFUTS AS A RESULT!

The cool kind.


No other country on earth permits an illegal alien in the immigration van being deported that pops out a child before the border is crossed for that child to be a u.s. citizen.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't think this is a real sentence.



How we deal with illegal aliens is extremely light and not tough enough.

I'm not sure how you want to "get tougher".


The biggest lie of our time is that they all come here to work.Some come here to work but some come here to work the system. It is a slap in the face to legal immigrants that did what they had to do to be citizens to permit this anything go's nonsence with illegals.

Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just making shit up? I thought you just said they work for below minimum wage? How is that working the system?


They broke the law and any form of amnesty would be awarding illegal behavior like if you got arrested for stealing and when you went to court instead of going to jail the judge gave you a check.

Again; what the fuck are you talking about?


It is insane and it makes no sence.

Neither do your sentences!


Especially in a post 911 world to do nothing to guard the border is just asking for another terrorist attack to ocour. Terrorist see our loose borders as a weakness and will exploit that to reach there goal of mass murder.

Except that none of the terrorists came in illegally. All of them had "legitimate" visas. You could have had a forcefield around the country and it wouldn't have stopped them.


Groups like the ACLU encourage this by fighting all border enforcement and deportation under civil rights.It is no ones civil right to break the law.

That depends on the law. I suppose it wasn't Rosa Parks' "civil right" to sit on the front of the bus, because that was illegal.


Border laws are not against the constitution or the bill of rights and if you entered the country illegaly you are not granted the rights of u.s. citizens.

And as such, you can't really break the laws U.S. Citizens are forced to abide by, can you?


Ask any legal immigrant what they think of the problem with illegals that said f--- the law and now act as if there equal to everyone else here.

They are equal. If anything, illegal immigrants are better than naturally born citizens, because they actually have a strong desire to be here to the point that they would risk their lives, as opposed to simply being born here and not working at all for it.


The legal immigrant despices this because they worked hard to come here legally.Border controll is important and should be enforced.

It is enforced. I'm not entirely sure what you're complaining about.

[rioters bloc]

dope pic