Controlling Immigration Means Controlling Everyone

Just a little food for thought...

The article below is actually a really good read. It describes in some detail how instituting controls on people, usually to keep the unwanted out, typically entails controls on the entire populace in order to maintain and verify whose coming in and who is here; citizens alike.

Here in the states, as we enter into another presidency, the ideas and the ramping up of border controls and immigration policies ensues; let's take a minute and reflect on past lessons, one in particular; and how it quickly evolved into overt control of everyone in order to control the undesirables.

This my friends was the logic of apartheid.

Source

But a little reflection should tell us that the key is to control not so much movement across borders as what people do within borders. It’s really not simply about numbers, and certainly not about foreigners crossing borders.

a reply to: Daedal

so....kinda like a house?


i have no problem with it at least in principle.

Yes, and when the people in the house are entitled to meals and beds, then the homeowner typically ensures whom is supposed to be there.

a reply to: Daedal

I have to register my gun because of a few bad eggs.
How is the border any different?

a reply to: Bluntone22

Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States saying that your firearms must be registered. In fact, you could argue that in order that you fulfill the responsibilities that come along with your second amendment rights, it is imperative that the government never be allowed to know how many guns they would be facing, should they decide to impose a tyranny on the people.

I mean, after all, that is the primary Constitutional defence for ownership of these things at all, right? The idea that you can use what arms you have to defend your own freedom and liberty, from a tyrannical government? You drop the advantage if they know what you have, where.

The existence of bad eggs means nothing when compared to the foundational concept on which the right to bear arms is based. Bad eggs with guns, is a price that is supposed to be gladly paid in order that people be permitted to defend their lives and their freedoms, without that right being infringed upon by any person or group, for any reason.

Similarly, saying on the one hand that your nation is open for business, prepared as it always used to be to take in the strays, waifs, and wanderers of the world, but only if those people are white, Christian, and only moving abroad for kicks, rather than out of necessity, is double dutch, unmitigated nonsense. Your border Nazis, the TSA (Tyrannical Sexual Abuse) and ICE (Ignorant Clotted Effluent) will even stop the son of an American boxing legend, and put him through outrageous questioning. No one in those organisations is fit to taste the armpit sweat of the son of Muhammad Ali, yet they see fit to put the man through the wringer?

I find it absolutely objectionable, that those who bleated most angrily about things like their right to bear arms, their right to have thirty round magazines, their right to this, that and the other thing, did not understand that insisting on a heavily controlled border, would mean that everyone had less rights, less freedoms, less liberties at the end of it, because what they were inviting is the very tyranny that you are supposed to be arming against.

This my friends was the logic of apartheid.

Seriously ?

Wall Street Control.

Banker Control.

Corporation Control.

Gun Control

BORDER CONTROL.

If the former is acceptable and isn't called 'apartheid'.

Then neither is the latter.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
Yes, and when the people in the house are entitled to meals and beds, then the homeowner typically ensures whom is supposed to be there.

I don't have a problem with the law making requirements for legitimization of citizens.

I have a problem when the rules for legitimization of citizens are more stringent for the natural citizen than it is for those that enter illegitimately.

Without some level of control people would go nuts or AWOL.

Control is a process working in a system. It ensures quality standards are met to a certain culture.

I have no problem if the law keeps people under control. But too much control like in communist/dictatorship style community is not for me. I can hold my own.

a reply to: neo96

It's only an anology.

a reply to: Daedal

Another note. Letting others in who differ in social and political opinions is "to control not so much movement across borders as what people do within borders. "

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: Daedal

Another note. Letting others in who differ in social and political opinions is "to control not so much movement across borders as what people do within borders. "

That is why I don't live in a gated community or where there is a HOA.

When you agree to the perks you commit to the rules.

Well been many walls built over the last 1000 years not one was really ment to keep people out

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Bluntone22

Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States saying that your firearms must be registered. In fact, you could argue that in order that you fulfill the responsibilities that come along with your second amendment rights, it is imperative that the government never be allowed to know how many guns they would be facing, should they decide to impose a tyranny on the people.

I mean, after all, that is the primary Constitutional defence for ownership of these things at all, right? The idea that you can use what arms you have to defend your own freedom and liberty, from a tyrannical government? You drop the advantage if they know what you have, where.

The existence of bad eggs means nothing when compared to the foundational concept on which the right to bear arms is based. Bad eggs with guns, is a price that is supposed to be gladly paid in order that people be permitted to defend their lives and their freedoms, without that right being infringed upon by any person or group, for any reason.

Similarly, saying on the one hand that your nation is open for business, prepared as it always used to be to take in the strays, waifs, and wanderers of the world, but only if those people are white, Christian, and only moving abroad for kicks, rather than out of necessity, is double dutch, unmitigated nonsense. Your border Nazis, the TSA (Tyrannical Sexual Abuse) and ICE (Ignorant Clotted Effluent) will even stop the son of an American boxing legend, and put him through outrageous questioning. No one in those organisations is fit to taste the armpit sweat of the son of Muhammad Ali, yet they see fit to put the man through the wringer?

I find it absolutely objectionable, that those who bleated most angrily about things like their right to bear arms, their right to have thirty round magazines, their right to this, that and the other thing, did not understand that insisting on a heavily controlled border, would mean that everyone had less rights, less freedoms, less liberties at the end of it, because what they were inviting is the very tyranny that you are supposed to be arming against.

Absolutely right on the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately the rest of your post is clap trap. There is no attempt to only allow white Christians into the country and there can be no special treatment given to celebrities. I take it you know Muhammed Ali's son well to give him such a glowing review

a reply to: Daedal

If you're in the US, I honestly wouldn't worry about it too very much. Considering a thriving open borders program along with a "legal" immigration annual quota of near 1 Million people and all the HB1 Visas granted for Silicon Valley; considering the lack of tracking of these people so no one knows how many have overstayed their visas the genuine truth of the matter is that the US government actually has practically speaking NO IDEA who's in the US. The State and local governments have no where NEAR the sums of money it would take to figure it all out and the Feds can't hire enough people fast enough over a sufficiently long period of time to figure it all out.

And don't forget..............after 4 years of Trump we're likely to get some whack job Democrat Globalist in the White Hut and he or she will reopen the spigot.

Actually I just realized as I was typing this that it would probably take something on the order of 9/11 terrorist attacks on US soil at the rate of 1 a month for a year before the US Government would actually take the steps to figure this out and THEN they'd have to engage the entirety of the US Armed Forces and the National Guards to try to round up EVERYONE and verify who they are and why they're in the US, citizen/non-citizen alike. And the likelihood of that happening is slim to none.

You're better off worrying about global warming.

a reply to: UKTruth

Oh no, there is no STATED desire to only see white or Christian immigrants to the United States. Its not baldly stated, not advertised on billboards. But it may as well be tattooed on Donald Trumps forehead.

Furthermore, there is a difference between giving a celebrity special treatment, like them not having to have their passport even glanced at, or their bags scanned like everyone elses, and maybe not treating the son of the worlds greatest boxer like a terrorist threat.

Why does it have to be a binary choice?

Why do people seem to insist that either all immigration is good or it's all bad?

It's a bloody stupid proposition. Keeping immigration to a certain level means that the host society can house, feed, employ and assimilate newcomers. Going all out with no limits means that the general standard of living falls, resentment rises, public services suffer and EVERYONE in the general society, feels worse off.

Just be sensible. That's all that is required.