immigration

[Oh-Dae-Su]

alright, im an immigrant myself, hispanic by the way, but im not Central or South American, im Cuban, which means that even if i do come ilegally to this country im not deported because of a law which protects Cuban immigrants...but my central and south american friends are not protected, and i recently became aware of the Immigration Police targetting all central and south americans here in my city, Miami, it sucks for them, it's true that these people come here to work just like me and my fellow Cubans, and i really do feel sorry, because i mean it's true , who is going to do all the construction work? all the undesirable jobs americans don't do? i say if your producing and helping the economy why take that away?

but......

i started thinking, ok well whats the point of all this? alright, dude every country in the world has immigration laws, and every country probably enforces them, and here in America we are defenitally aware of illegal immigration, if i was a natural born american of couple of generations, i think i would probably feel a little hostile about millions of people comming illegaly to my country, plus what do you suggest we do? let illegal aliens just run free in the country? than what are the immigration laws for than? what would be the point of having them? if your an illegal alien sorry that's what you are, ILLEGAL!! i mean whats the solution to this? if there was some sort of amnesty towards illegal aliens in the country than i might as well be a taliban from fucking Afghanistan get my ass to the border and cross like it aint no thing and plant my bombs.......i just want to know if you guys understand what im trying to say?

listen, im an immigrant, i came legally because im fortunate and plus even if i had comed illegally i would have been given residency because im Cuban also because im lucky about that, but for my fellow hispanics i do feel sorry, i mean it is bad, i mean their helping the community they come here to work, but i also understand that if your illegal, your braking a law!!

[LSD]

if i was a natural born american of couple of generations, i think i would probably feel a little hostile about millions of people comming illegaly to my country

Why?

Why on earth would give a damn about esoteric crap like "immigration laws"?

I would think that you would have far more important issues to deal with in your own life, and the question of whether or not the people entering the country are "legally" "valid" or "invalid" would be remarkably irrelevent.

That is unless you'd been duped by bourgeois politicians into imagining that immigration is a "critical issue".

Hopefuly, though, this hypothetical "natural born American" is too smart for all that! :lol:


plus what do you suggest we do? let illegal aliens just run free in the country?

That's the wrong question.

"Illegal aliens" already are "running free" in your country.

The only decision at issue now is whether or not to support the government in cracking down on them; and the revolutionary leftist position is a defiant no!

You see, the problem with trying to come up with an "answer" to the "immigration" problem is that in doing so you tacitly accept bourgeois legitimacy.

There is no "solution" to "immigration" because the problem isn't "Mexicans" or "border security", it's capitalism. And as long as economic inequality and neoliberal imperialism exist, so will development disparity; and so will people desperate enough to try and "sneak" into better jobs, no matter the cost.

And end to capitalism isn't realistic, however, and so as revolutionary leftists, our only concern must be what we can do within the confines placed on us by capitalist society. Imagining "perfect models" is nice fun, but it doesn't get us anywhere and it doesn't account for the fact that we are not the ones in charge.

Our "reaction" to immigration has to be pragmatic. We need to recognize that immigrants are not "terrorists" or "foreigners", they are proletarians and they are some of the most oppressed proletarians out there.

Supporting them in any fight for rights or recognition weakens the power of the bourgeoisie and strengthens the working-class position. It also helps to integrate immigrants into the general working population which serves to simultanteously improve immigrants' class position and remove a key tool from the bourgeoisie's political arsenol.

We are fighting class war here, not crafting bourgeois legislation. Anything that hurts the capitalists helps us!


than what are the immigration laws for than?

Mainly to keep immigrants in line.

Notice that "immigration reform" only becomes an issue in election years and that, despite the noise, nothing ever seems to get done.

The US government has no interest in kicking out "illegal immigrants", they are far too dependent on them. They just like to scare the shit out of them every couple of years to make sure that they don't get too "uppity".


if there was some sort of amnesty towards illegal aliens in the country than i might as well be a taliban from fucking Afghanistan get my ass to the border and cross like it aint no thing and plant my bombs.......

In terms of "terrorists", I would remind you that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States legally and that none of them crossed the Mexican-American border.

Making immigration a "terrorism" issue is just rightist fear-mongering nothing more.

As long as the US remains an imperialist oppressor, those it oppresses will try and fight back. Occassionaly, they will be spectacularly successful (e.g., Septermber 11th), but most of the time they will fail miserably.

"Building a wall" along the Mexican border, however, will not boost your chances. The US is simply too large a landmass to "insulate". And as long as your rulling class continues in its colonialist ways, the American people will unfortunately bear some of the costs.

The only real solution, of course, is to kick out your rulling class! :D

[Oh-Dae-Su]

you keep refering to "my ruling class" :blink: wtf? umm if you read what i said, IM AN IMMIGRANT TOO, a "proletariat" as you refer us as...

anyways , it's obvious you and i have 2 sides of the spectrum type of look at the world........and if you would like for me to give you a little inside into the minds of all these immigrants they think very differently from you (in terms of ideology in terms of left right) and they love America

anyways, my point is, i do think these immigrants should be given amnesty, but only those who are proven to be working and producing and doing what they came here to do which is work and look for a better life, because other than that, they are what they are, ILLEGAL! if i went to Kazakhstan and i did the same thing, i would be illegal in Kazakhstan as well and would probably get kicked out of the country...same here but it's just soooooo many, i mean it's incalculable how many illegal aliens there really are.......


Mainly to keep immigrants in line

ummm, i think it's more like to keep social order, and to keep laws that should be in place active, by the way are you an anarchist? if you are than there is no point in this conversation i know where your going....

and yes your right about the terrorism, but we are post-9/11, so it's irrelevant....and let me guess by what you said about the oppressed are going to fight back, your in the usual leftist support of suicide bombers and hijackers because i mean of course we are the oppressors in their "holy" land and we support the little "devil" called Israel.. :rolleyes:

and about building a wall, ok you can think whatever you want off me, but seriously i would have to be out of my mind to support building a wall, lol...


it's capitalism

is there any country that you support? say probably Scandanavian countries, if i want to go there to live will that be because of their system too? even though well..yeah it is capitalist...but my point is, you think that if Mexico had your ideal society next to the current US society there would be no immigration? Mexico is Mexico, unfortunately there are some countries that will always be inferior to others economically and politically...but why blame capitalism? how about blaming the way Mexico has been structured, how about blaming the dictatorship of the PRI for 70 years, how about blaming all the corruption etc.. why capitalism? capitalism is just an economic system which in fact can be mixed with socialist ideals to make the best ever proven economic systems in the world, otherwise known as mixed economies like the one present in the USA , and a different variation in Scandanavian countries...so because capitalism is the economic system in Mexico and because the idiots in charge have an oligarchy which steals for 70 years it's a problem of capitalism, well yes to a certain extent yes, but if it was a system like Cuba's or North Korea's etc.. uuuu boy the wall would have been there a century ago trust me...

[redstar2000]

Like many bourgeois laws, the "immigration laws" are, in practice, unenforceable on their face. The immigrants that get caught and deported are unlucky...that's all.

So, what to do?

1. Seal the borders! Only diplomats and businessmen from other countries are allowed in at all...no foreign tourists, no students, no nothing! (That means no Canadians too! :lol:)

Sound like a good idea?

2. Open the borders! Anyone who makes it here gets a "green card" and a photo ID...and, after a couple of years, citizenship if they want it. Only being convicted of a serious crime can result in deportation...otherwise, you're "in".

Everybody's "legal" and entitled to all the legal protections and benefits as everybody else.

As someone whose ancestors go "all the way back" to colonial America, "option 2" seems to me to be the best approach.

Does that mean that one or two billion people from the "third world" will emigrate to the U.S. over the next 50 years?

It might.

Does that mean that there would be some drastic changes in our "culture" as we borrowed from the cultures of the immigrants?

Yes, it could mean that.

Does that mean that we should all piss ourselves in terror of the "alien invasion"? :o

Well, maybe, if we were all dumbasses!

The history of empires demonstrates that the "imperial heartland" always attracts immigrants from the "provinces". Since the American Empire is the largest in history and spreads across the whole world, there will be people from everywhere who want to come here...and will do it!

If all roads once "led to Rome", they now lead to the "international arrivals" terminals in almost every American city.

Efforts to "control" immigration are as futile as efforts to stop people from using "illegal drugs".

LEGALIZE EVERYBODY!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[overlord]

Why?

Why on earth would give a damn about esoteric crap like "immigration laws"?

I would think that you would have far more important issues to deal with in your own life, and the question of whether or not the people entering the country are "legally" "valid" or "invalid" would be remarkably irrelevent.

That is unless you'd been duped by bourgeois politicians into imagining that immigration is a "critical issue".

Hopefuly, though, this hypothetical "natural born American" is too smart for all that!

You might not have anything against immigration. But I think communist governments have a lot against emmigration of their state slaves.



There is no "solution" to "immigration" because the problem isn't "Mexicans" or "border security", it's capitalism. And as long as economic inequality and neoliberal imperialism exist, so will development disparity; and so will people desperate enough to try and "sneak" into better jobs, no matter the cost.

Oh come on LSD, capitalism is'nt that bad. Libertarians hate immigration laws. They see them as 'socialist'.



Supporting them in any fight for rights or recognition weakens the power of the bourgeoisie and strengthens the working-class position. It also helps to integrate immigrants into the general working population which serves to simultanteously improve immigrants' class position and remove a key tool from the bourgeoisie's political arsenol.

Some of those immigrants will get rich and vote for the conservatives + big political donations for tax breaks. Talk about betrayal!


We are fighting class war here, not crafting bourgeois legislation. Anything that hurts the capitalists helps us!

Do we really have to fight a class war? Can't we all just get along? :)

If you kick the capitalists out, how will that help you? The strongest among you will just take the richest for themselves and eventually become new capitalists.

The revolution won't last half a year before you need a counter-revolution, but if you try you'll be shot as traitors by your own revolution! I repeat, lets get along and forget this sillyness eh?

[RedSkvnk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:06 PM
That's the wrong question.

"Illegal aliens" already are "running free" in your country.

The only decision at issue now is whether or not to support the government in cracking down on them; and the revolutionary leftist position is a defiant no!

You see, the problem with trying to come up with an "answer" to the "immigration" problem is that in doing so you tacitly accept bourgeois legitimacy.

There is no "solution" to "immigration" because the problem isn't "Mexicans" or "border security", it's capitalism. And as long as economic inequality and neoliberal imperialism exist, so will development disparity; and so will people desperate enough to try and "sneak" into better jobs, no matter the cost.

And end to capitalism isn't realistic, however, and so as revolutionary leftists, our only concern must be what we can do within the confines placed on us by capitalist society. Imagining "perfect models" is nice fun, but it doesn't get us anywhere and it doesn't account for the fact that we are not the ones in charge.

Our "reaction" to immigration has to be pragmatic. We need to recognize that immigrants are not "terrorists" or "foreigners", they are proletarians and they are some of the most oppressed proletarians out there.

Supporting them in any fight for rights or recognition weakens the power of the bourgeoisie and strengthens the working-class position. It also helps to integrate immigrants into the general working population which serves to simultanteously improve immigrants' class position and remove a key tool from the bourgeoisie's political arsenol.

We are fighting class war here, not crafting bourgeois legislation. Anything that hurts the capitalists helps us!
Care to actually say something this time around, instead of just quaint rhetorical posturing? How does increasing the amount of unskilled labor in the workforce "weaken the power of the bourgeoisie and strengthen the working-class position"? The single rational way that this excerpt of your post makes sense, is by removing the political element, the way that politicians are able to use xenophobia during election years. But this is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. As you said yourself, it's only an "issue" during election years, and nothing is ever done.

Supporting some fantasy political landscape is one thing, and you admitted that it has no real worth in the present reality. So extend that pragmatic outlook to your actual politic. "Supporting immigration at any cost" doesn't make sense. It's not revolutionary, it's reactionary.

Flooding the unskilled labor force doesn't strengthen the working-class position. It further reduces its influence as there's more workers available who will work for less. Yes, right now, with illegal immigrants living in the US, they work below the standards already established, for fear of being outted and sent back. But that's just reason to grant amnesty. It's not a reason to give carte blanche and totally give up on any immigration policy at all.

As long as there is economic inequity in the world, there needs to be some sort of order established. We need to work on bettering the areas where they're coming from. If Mexico had a higher standard of living, there would not be this immigration problem – real or political construction.There is no 'immigration problem' from Canada.

[LSD]

Care to actually say something this time around, instead of just quaint rhetorical posturing?

:huh:

"Quaint"?


How does increasing the amount of unskilled labor in the workforce "weaken the power of the bourgeoisie and strengthen the working-class position"?

It doesn't, but fighting for workers' rights -- immigrants or not -- strengthens the position of the working class relative to the bourgeoisie.

You see, the difference between us here is that you are approaching this question from a policy perspective, as if you actually had some control over the bourgeois legislative process.

I, however, recognize that I have zero influence over the "hearts and minds" or bourgeois politicans, and am solely loyal to the working class.

The question is not which "law" would be "better", for such an appraoch is predicated on the acceptance of bourgeois republican legitimacy. Instead, revolutionaries take the perspective of working class action and ask which proletarian act is in our best interest.

You may have time for esoteric thought experiments like "what if I were president", but in the real world, all that we can do is what we can do.

No more, no less.


Yes, right now, with illegal immigrants living in the US, they work below the standards already established, for fear of being outted and sent back. But that's just reason to grant amnesty.

It's a reason to push for immigrants' rights.

Again, you are imagining that you actually have some "say" over government policy. That "amnesty" or "immigration reform" is somehow "your decision to make".

Almost as though you believe the US is a democracy! :lol:


As long as there is economic inequity in the world, there needs to be some sort of order established.

Sorry, but it's actually the other way around.

As long as this "sort of order" exists, so will "economic inequality".

There is no "natural law" that creates "wealth" disparity; it's just the nature of capitalist expansionism. And as long as capitalism exists, so will inequality.

The only "answer" to the "poverty question" is broard-based mass popular revolutions across the world. No "aid packages" or neo-liberal "reforms" will do the trick.


If Mexico had a higher standard of living, there would not be this immigration problem

Sure there would, it would just be Mexico's! :lol:

[Fistful of Steel]

You do realize that "Americans" were actually Europeans who got sick of their own problems so decided to go live in a new place with less problems (like immigrants today). And rather than just peacefully coexisting with the native inhabitants of the land (like modern immigrants to America), most of the native inhabitants ended up dead through disease brought over and warfare. The hypocrisy in denying immigrants the right to live in America when America was founded completely by immigrants who wiped the old denizens near totally out of existence surely can't be lost on you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 12:36 PM
Do we really have to fight a class war? Can't we all just get along?
"If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning" - Warrem Buffett, 2004

Class struggle is always going on the only thing is that the working class has been loosing in the US for the last 30 years or so. Politicians, pundits and various think tanks only consider class struggle to be when workers beging to fight back. It's not class war, according to them, when the costs of things that benifit business are pushed onto workers, but it's considered class war any time anyone even questions business or pro-business governmental practices.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 28 2006, 08:59 PM
You do realize that "Americans" were actually Europeans who got sick of their own problems so decided to go live in a new place with less problems (like immigrants today). And rather than just peacefully coexisting with the native inhabitants of the land (like modern immigrants to America), most of the native inhabitants ended up dead through disease brought over and warfare. The hypocrisy in denying immigrants the right to live in America when America was founded completely by immigrants who wiped the old denizens near totally out of existence surely can't be lost on you.
nor the warningss

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:56 PM
Flooding the unskilled labor force doesn't strengthen the working-class position. It further reduces its influence as there's more workers available who will work for less. Yes, right now, with illegal immigrants living in the US, they work below the standards already established, for fear of being outted and sent back. But that's just reason to grant amnesty. It's not a reason to give carte blanche and totally give up on any immigration policy at all.
The working class's influence isn't lessened by immigration, it is lessened by lack of the ability to organize and fight back. In the US depression, there were a lot of unskilled laborers out of work and looking for day labor or anythhing to get a wage... and workers had little influence until they began organizing themselves (sometimes defying the leadership of their own unions) and working in solidarity with other workers.

If Bush and the Democrats who are pushing the McCain-Kennedy plan get their way, then we have a new bracero program which means a second-class status for these workers who will be depandant on their job to be able to keep living here and who have no right to organize. THis means a group of workers who can be pushed around and have no power and then native-born workers have to compete in a race to the bottom with second-class status workers.

This is why there needs to be full rights and full amnisty for anyone who works here. It will take a movement to be able to force the government to do this and I think in the process of building this movement, workers in this country have the potential to train themselves and develop a militant consiousness that will be able to turn the labor landscape around and reintroduce the US working class to things like a strike that fights and wins and solidarity and other militant tradditions... starting by reintroducing May 1st the US is a promising start.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:07 AM
LEGALIZE EVERYBODY!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/653.gif

[cyu]

You do realize that "Americans" were actually Europeans who got sick of their own problems so decided to go live in a new place with less problems (like immigrants today). And rather than just peacefully coexisting with the native inhabitants of the land (like modern immigrants to America), most of the native inhabitants ended up dead through disease brought over and warfare. The hypocrisy in denying immigrants the right to live in America when America was founded completely by immigrants who wiped the old denizens near totally out of existence surely can't be lost on you.

Exactly. Were the pilgrims legal immigrants? Eventually Native Americans tried to fight off the "illegal immigrants" coming in to settle their land. They just happened to lose.

But I agree with the rest of the posts that say the problem of immigration would be solved if capitalism didn't result in so many poor people desperate to find work.

[Beast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:13 AM
Like many bourgeois laws, the "immigration laws" are, in practice, unenforceable on their face. The immigrants that get caught and deported are unlucky...that's all.

So, what to do?

1. Seal the borders! Only diplomats and businessmen from other countries are allowed in at all...no foreign tourists, no students, no nothing! (That means no Canadians too! :lol:)

Sound like a good idea?

2. Open the borders! Anyone who makes it here gets a "green card" and a photo ID...and, after a couple of years, citizenship if they want it. Only being convicted of a serious crime can result in deportation...otherwise, you're "in".

Everybody's "legal" and entitled to all the legal protections and benefits as everybody else.

As someone whose ancestors go "all the way back" to colonial America, "option 2" seems to me to be the best approach.

Does that mean that one or two billion people from the "third world" will emigrate to the U.S. over the next 50 years?

It might.

Does that mean that there would be some drastic changes in our "culture" as we borrowed from the cultures of the immigrants?

Yes, it could mean that.

Does that mean that we should all piss ourselves in terror of the "alien invasion"? :o

Well, maybe, if we were all dumbasses!

The history of empires demonstrates that the "imperial heartland" always attracts immigrants from the "provinces". Since the American Empire is the largest in history and spreads across the whole world, there will be people from everywhere who want to come here...and will do it!

If all roads once "led to Rome", they now lead to the "international arrivals" terminals in almost every American city.

Efforts to "control" immigration are as futile as efforts to stop people from using "illegal drugs".

LEGALIZE EVERYBODY!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
wow, how intelligant, everybody flooding certain corners of the world, prehaps we should do the same in Britain, we build, they come over and take, not to mention cultural diversity like knife and gun attacks, changing our culture, hating us (which they do, go onto black or indian forum and read for youself the shit they say, they dont like us and they stick up for each other no matter what, yet you make it your goal to "accept" them, but they dont accept you.

what really should be happening is tighter immigration, illegels once caught shouldnt be able to argue their case for staying in courts and get homes while they wait, they are illegel they should have no rights in the country they enter, they should be sent back to where they came from.

they take our sovierignty, our pride, our dignity and once here they dont change to fit in, the make us change around them, then it becomes this cess-pool of non-whites who are allowed to be racist to us and if we defend ourselves we're carted of to prisons

you really think your revolution can happen?, not on our watch it wont!

[Beast]

We are fighting class war here, not crafting bourgeois legislation. Anything that hurts the capitalists helps us!





haha, most of the working class you claim to be fighting for are more and more going right wing to far right, i know i am, im a working class footsoldier, a warrior, fighting for my land, my people and my class, not trying to make one culturless "robot" class you want in which nobody is rewarded for their own merit

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:22 PM

We are fighting class war here, not crafting bourgeois legislation. Anything that hurts the capitalists helps us!





haha, most of the working class you claim to be fighting for are more and more going right wing to far right, i know i am, im a working class footsoldier, a warrior, fighting for my land, my people and my class, not trying to make one culturless "robot" class you want in which nobody is rewarded for their own merit
It works both ways. Society becomes "polarized" between complete opposites. The fact that one opposite promotes human rights abuse, lack of freedom, militarism, and curtails freedom and the other opposite promotes freedom, equality, and the unity of humanity is besides the point of course. And as shown by your other thread a good deal of the leftists on this forum are part of the working class. So what.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Beast
they take our sovierignty, our pride, our dignity and once here they dont change to fit in, the make us change around them, then it becomes this cess-pool of non-whites who are allowed to be racist to us and if we defend ourselves we're carted of to prisons

Boo-fucking-hoo! http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/014.gif


im a working class footsoldier, a warrior, fighting for my land, my people and my class, not trying to make one culturless "robot" class you want in which nobody is rewarded for their own merit

You are a semi-literate dumbass who will inevitably land in the shit...where you belong. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Matt_from_California]

Hmmm, where to start. How about with this Aztlan Rising (http://media.putfile.com/aztlanrising)

Most of the immigrants are from Mexico and have this reconquista mentality that the South West belongs to them, so if you support them, you are supporting Nationalists. They don't want peace, and they don't like people who are not mestizo. I have known some Mexicans and have never encountered any who seemed racist, however I have read that areas closer to the border are pretty bad. Another thing I would like to point out is that if two billion people came here in the next 50 years, North America would be one massive shithole with everyone trying to escape, you can't have massive ammounts of people moving from one area of the world to another and expect everything to go nicely.

[LSD]

Most of the immigrants are from Mexico and have this reconquista mentality that the South West belongs to them

No, most of the immigrants from Mexico have a survival mantality. That is, they want to survive.

Their only "political" interests are in the promotion of that aim. They don't care which rich white male "representative" is ruling over them that day, they just want to try and disuade them from putting them in jail.

Honestly, it's a lesson that more white people should take to heart. The rulers of your country may look like you, but they are not you.

You have nothing to fear from starving peasants, you have a lot to fear from your imperialist oppressors; and the sooner you realize who your real enemy is the sooner you can do something about it.

THe best way to fight "nationalism", whether it be Mexican, American, or anything else, is to expose the falacy that "nationhood" really even exists.

The only war that matters to revolutionary leftists is the class war. Everything else is a distraction.


so if you support them, you are supporting Nationalists

That "argument" is so far from being logical that it's practically dadaistic.

Most of the Jews killed during the holocause were religious. Does that mean that opposing death camps is "supporting religion"?

I have nothing but contempt for nationalism. But I am pragmatic enough to realize that the "nationalism" of Mexican immigrants is desperate fantasy whereas the nationalism of Americans is getting people killed.

Despie the paranoid scare-mongering of right-wing racists, the threat of an ascendant "Aztlan" state is nil.

These are the same conspiracy theories that have accompanied every large-scale migration. When the Irish tried to get in, it was a "catholic plot", when Asians tried to get in, it was an "oriental invasion", and now that hispanics are trying to get in, it's "aztlan rising".

Old song, new lyrics... <_<


They don&#39;t want peace, and they don&#39;t like people who are not mestizo.

And you "know" this ...how?

What is it exactly that you think "illegal" immigrants "want" if they don&#39;t want peace"? War? :blink

You really think that they tracked across dessert, risked illegal crossing, evaded border securit, and accepted low paying employment, just to "start fights" and "cause trouble"? :blink:

Of course they "want peace", every working person wants peace. And in terms of "illegal" immigrants doubly so.

And insofar as their "racism". Don&#39;t you find it even somewhat preposterous to claim that people choosing to enter a country overwhelmingly populated by people who don&#39;t like them ...are "racist"?

I mean, really, if they hate non-hispanics as much as you claim they do, they would have stayed in Mexico.

As it is, thir economic well-being was more important than the petty "racism" you accuse them of. They&#39;re well aware that the US is owned and run by people who not only don&#39;t look like them, but tend to be racists themselves, and they don&#39;t care.

Sure, a lot of "illegal" immigrants have low opinions of white people; they&#39;ve been oppressed by them for their entire lives.

I&#39;d wager that very few Jews in 1942 "liked" Germans much. Does that mean that the Nazis were "justified"? :o


I have known some Mexicans and have never encountered any who seemed racist, however I have read that areas closer to the border are pretty bad.

Oh, you&#39;ve "read" that, have you? Where? In racist nationalist garbage like the video you linked to?

Well, it&#39;s nice to see that you value the opinions of racists above your own experience. :rolleyes:


Another thing I would like to point out is that if two billion people came here in the next 50 years, North America would be one massive shithole with everyone trying to escape

:lol:

Welcome to the world&#33;

I&#39;m sorry if these desperate starving people don&#39;t "mesh" with your little gated community, but it&#39;s about time that you started living in reality.

Maybe this is the wake-up call you need to finally stand-up and do something&#33;

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by theraven+Apr 28 2006, 09:24 PM--> (theraven @ Apr 28 2006, 09:24 PM)
Fistful of [email protected] 28 2006, 08:59 PM
You do realize that "Americans" were actually Europeans who got sick of their own problems so decided to go live in a new place with less problems (like immigrants today). And rather than just peacefully coexisting with the native inhabitants of the land (like modern immigrants to America), most of the native inhabitants ended up dead through disease brought over and warfare. The hypocrisy in denying immigrants the right to live in America when America was founded completely by immigrants who wiped the old denizens near totally out of existence surely can&#39;t be lost on you.
nor the warningss [/b]
That is perhaps one of the saddest things that I have seen posted here. How can you think of immigration laws as being in anyway legitimate considering their foundations? Or is suiting selfish purposes what is required by you for something to be legitimate?

[encephalon]

fuck the law and anyone who wants to impose it upon me or anyone else, immigrant or otherwise. It&#39;s our world, not the world of a select few. That includes North America.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;[email protected] 27 2006, 09:44 PM
listen, im an immigrant, i came legally because im fortunate and plus even if i had comed illegally i would have been given residency because im Cuban also because im lucky about that, but for my fellow hispanics i do feel sorry, i mean it is bad, i mean their helping the community they come here to work, but i also understand that if your illegal, your braking a law&#33;&#33;
If comrades will allow me to indulge for a moment:...

Mr. Gusano, if you do not like the legal system of the country you chose, I am sure there are those who will tell you that you&#39;re welcome to leave -- preferrably in the same manner you came here.

Miles

[Capitalist Lawyer]

As long as the US remains an imperialist oppressor, those it oppresses will try and fight back. Occassionaly, they will be spectacularly successful (e.g., Septermber 11th), but most of the time they will fail miserably.

"Building a wall" along the Mexican border, however, will not boost your chances. The US is simply too large a landmass to "insulate". And as long as your rulling class continues in its colonialist ways, the American people will unfortunately bear some of the costs.

The only real solution, of course, is to kick out your rulling class&#33;

When has the US "oppressed" anyone in the past 50 years? It has not taken over a single inch of land of another country that was not turned over to its own people for its self-governance, and self-determination. Much less using "imperialism" to do it.

Osama and company are not oppressed people, but set up shop in oppressive and or lawless governments like the Taliban run Afghanistan or Somalia.

The US government is hardly dependant on illegal immigrants. Far from it. Businesses of all sorts are however, of course, both big and small. Enforcing the law is a duty of executive branch, not just a means of "scaring the shit out of people" for the fun of it.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)When has the US "oppressed" anyone in the past 50 years?[/b]

American Imperialism - A list of American Imperialism in the World (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=5309)


Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected]
It has not taken over a single inch of land of another country that was not turned over to its own people for its self-governance, and self-determination.

Like in Chile?


Capitalist Lawyer
Much less using "imperialism" to do it.

So the American Military in Vietnam was what....an illusion?

Remember Capitalist Imperial? At least he had the decency to be honest.

[Vasili Blucher]

Like many bourgeois laws

Wow, what a load of idealistic Trotskyist rubbish we&#39;ve got here.

There is not anything bourgeois about the rule of law contrary to your bizarre, pseudo-Marxist theories. When Boris Yeltsin violated the constitution in 1993 and proceeded to massacre hundreds of our Communist and Patriotic comrades, he didn&#39;t merely violate what you perceive to be "bourgeois law". Your adovcation of the violation of a country&#39;s laws are degenerate to the utmost and is purely anti-socialist.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:51 AM
As long as the US remains an imperialist oppressor, those it oppresses will try and fight back. Occassionaly, they will be spectacularly successful (e.g., Septermber 11th), but most of the time they will fail miserably.

Which imperialist policy were the 9/11 Freedom Fighters striking out against?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+May 10 2006, 11:08 PM--> (Capitalist Lawyer @ May 10 2006, 11:08 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 02:51 AM
As long as the US remains an imperialist oppressor, those it oppresses will try and fight back. Occassionaly, they will be spectacularly successful (e.g., Septermber 11th), but most of the time they will fail miserably.

Which imperialist policy were the 9/11 Freedom Fighters striking out against? [/b]

Based on what I&#39;ve read, the "Saudi" hijackers were pissed because of American support for the Government of "Saudi" Arabia....you know, that charming liberal democracy located in the Arabian Peninsula.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+May 9 2006, 05:30 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ May 9 2006, 05:30 PM)
Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)When has the US "oppressed" anyone in the past 50 years?[/b]

American Imperialism - A list of American Imperialism in the World (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=5309)


Capitalist [email protected]
It has not taken over a single inch of land of another country that was not turned over to its own people for its self-governance, and self-determination.

Like in Chile?


Capitalist Lawyer
Much less using "imperialism" to do it.

So the American Military in Vietnam was what....an illusion?

Remember Capitalist Imperial? At least he had the decency to be honest. [/b]
All of you here have compared Iraq to Vietnam and I&#39;ve disagreed at times and agreed at others. I&#39;ve agreed that they are similar in that the media&#39;s portrayal may very well lead to defeat.

When we left Vietnam and surrounding region, the blood bath BEGAN. There&#39;s no reason to think the situation would be any different in Iraq... EXCEPT our national security would then be seriously compromised as the terrorists would now KNOW that the USA has no will to defend itself.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
There&#39;s no reason to think the situation would be any different in Iraq... EXCEPT our national security would then be seriously compromised as the terrorists would now KNOW that the USA has no will to defend itself.

*Yawns*

That is really pathetic, CL. There is no sense that all the "terrorists" in the world put together are any kind of serious "threat" to American "national security" -- whatever the hell that means.

You sound like one of those guys who checks under your bed every night for "terrorists".

How old did you say you were? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)All of you here have compared Iraq to Vietnam....[/b]

Other than both being American Imperial adventures, there&#39;s not a lot you can use for a comparison being Iraq and Vietnam....militarily speaking that is. The American Military has, by all accounts, fought more "humanely" (pardon the expression) in Iraq.

Of course, with regards Vietnam, only the Nazi War Machine and Imperial Japan behaved worse in the countries they occupied during the last century. In the mid 60&#39;s, some American Military personnel went as far as to say that they thought the American actions in Vietnam would make the Vietnamese an extinct people.

But really, this is besides the point....you asked, originally, about American Imperialism in general and not specific Imperial adventures and whether they are "comparable".


Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)I&#39;ve agreed that they are similar in that the media&#39;s portrayal may very well lead to defeat.[/b]

If you&#39;ve argued this, then your dumber than I thought.

The success of American Imperialism in Iraq, just like in Vietnam, almost completely relies on how successful the Resistance is. American left Vietnam because of the effect it was having on the American economy....if they lose in Iraq, it will be for similar reasons.

The Media, up until recently, has consistently beat the "War Drum"....the only reason they&#39;ve become slightly more cynical now, is because the American business community has become slightly more cynical.

The idea that the Media lost Vietnam, or may lose Iraq, is completely nonsense.


Capitalist [email protected]
When we left Vietnam and surrounding region, the blood bath BEGAN.

Nope; the 4 million Vietnamese people that died, died during the invasion....and likewise, quite a few of the dead Cambodians, died because of American bombing of Cambodia.

As declassified documents with regards American bombing have shown, the bombing of the North was pretty well planned (due, if memory serves me correctly, to the transportation systems there that the American Military wished to protect), where as the plan for the bombing of the South, was just basically, drop them....anywhere&#33; :o

Saying the killing "BEGAN" when the American Military left Vietnam, is like saying the Holocaust began after WWII. And essentially, based on the historical evidence with regards the Vietnam War, I personally think your denial on this subject, is comparable to Holocaust denial.


Capitalist Lawyer
EXCEPT our national security would then be seriously compromised as the terrorists would now KNOW that the USA has no will to defend itself.

The "terrorists" can blow up what they want now....in effect, your "national security" is already "compromised".

The most effective way to protect American "national security", would be to leave the region completely and stop meddling in its affairs. After all, I heard Usama bin Laden once, rhetorically, asked "Why don&#39;t we bomb Sweden?"

He then proceeded to give the answer; but I suspect you know what it is already.

[Janus]

When we left Vietnam and surrounding region, the blood bath BEGAN.
That never happened in Vietnam though it was constantly predicted. The domnio theory didn&#39;t prove to be quite true either.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

If you&#39;ve argued this, then your dumber than I thought.


Since our relations with Vietnam have improved, we&#39;ve learned from their leaders that the war was all but over for them and that the Tet Offensive was their last gasp. After that offensive failure, THEY&#39;VE admitted they were finished. Problem was, Cronkite and company portrayed Tet as a victory for the VC, which SERIOUSLY ramped up the anti-war protests and encouraged the VC to keep going, while demoralizing our troops.

The war was won for their side with the media reaction to Tet, while militarily it was won for our side. The media influenced our intestinal fortitude to stay long enough to finish the job.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
After that offensive failure, THEY&#39;VE admitted they were finished.

I won&#39;t dispute this, it is highly likely that the Vietnamese Resistance was starting to become innefective....that&#39;s what tends to happen when a country is subjected to possibly the most brutal occupation since Hitler and co. stomped over Eastern Europe.

But, it was not the portrayal by "Cronkite and company" of this that led to America losing the Vietnam War; after all, this was in 68&#39; and by that time, the anti-war movement was already pretty significant....as was public disapproval of the War. Rather, as is pretty well documented, the major Industrialists decided that the War was too expensive and its affect on the economy was bad enough to warrant a withdrawal.

Prolonged occupation may well have led to economic collapse and every sensible ruling class will try to avoid that....even if it makes some "hawks" annoyed. I mean, honestly, who do you think sets the News Agenda? As always, the News Media reflects the thoughts of the ruling class.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

But, it was not the portrayal by "Cronkite and company" of this that led to America losing the Vietnam War; after all, this was in 68&#39; and by that time, the anti-war movement was already pretty significant....as was public disapproval of the War.


And it didn&#39;t gain MAINSTREAM support until after Cronkite&#39;s portrayal of the Tet Offensive.



Rather, as is pretty well documented, the major Industrialists decided that the War was too expensive and its affect on the economy was bad enough to warrant a withdrawal.


It always comes down to the conspiratorial corporations with you.



As always, the News Media reflects the thoughts of the ruling class.

Then perhaps you can try to explain how the war in Iraq isn&#39;t being reported on truthfully and how everything that goes wrong is blamed on Bush.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)And it didn&#39;t gain MAINSTREAM support until after Cronkite&#39;s portrayal of the Tet Offensive.[/b]

The anti-war movement didn&#39;t go "mainstream" after the Tet Offensive....it may have gained slightly in size, but that was hardly due to the Tet Offensive in particular; because, after all, it had been growing in size over the last 5 years.

Indeed, "mainstream" public opinion seemed to favour a new direction in the War policy, rather than an abandonment of it altogether. As shown, in part, by the popular support one Richard Nixon gained.

From about 67&#39; onwards, the ruling class in general was having grave doubts about Vietnam; and it&#39;s likely they were planning a rethink even before the Tet Offensive. After all, the War itself was putting a tremendous strain on the American economy....and therefore, something needed to be done.


Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected]
It always comes down to the conspiratorial corporations with you.

Honestly, read something.

The ruling class, as a collective unit, had more or less decided that perpetuation of the Vietnam War would not be beneficial. Hence why, from even before the Tet Offensive. Virtually no section of the ruling class favoured an expansion of the Vietnam War....they were already trying to figure out to withdraw.

The idea that a News Report could influence so many people into radically changing their opinions, is quite frankly absurd. The writing was already, more or less, on the wall....and the subsequent News Reports, were just the American ruling classes attempt to save face.


Capitalist Lawyer
Then perhaps you can try to explain how the war in Iraq isn&#39;t being reported on truthfully and how everything that goes wrong is blamed on Bush.

Well, it&#39;s undeniable that the Iraqi Resistance haven&#39;t been given sufficient support by the News Media....they&#39;ve certainly been demonised enough. So that denotes a lack of objective reporting.

As for why Bush is blamed, well, that&#39;s pretty fricking obvious. Significant sections of the ruling class disagree with his War policies....mainly because they&#39;re negatively impacting the general economy. And therefore, they use the News Media to present their own factional interests.