Illegal immigrant gets California law license

[iknowexactly]

Hey, if you're going to get invaded by someone, you could do a lot worse than Mexicans. They're mostly pretty nice.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Israel only offers citizenship to Jewish immigrants under the law of return. Also, Arabs who were born - and stayed -in present-day Israel while it was under British rule were granted full citizenship. That's it. No gentile is eligible for citizenship in Israel. They also don't observe jus soli nationality; that is, unlike the US, one cannot obtain Israeli citizenship just from being born there.

Thus, the comparison doesn't fit at all. Israel does accept migrants and detains them under international human rights conventions that it is a signatory to, but that's it.

A better comparison to the US would be Australia, New Zealand, and Canada which all have similar immigration policies.

So can you explain to me why it's acceptable for Israel to have a blatantly racist, hardline immigration policy, but in the United States we must open our borders to floods of immigrants, both legal and illegal?

Modern-day Israel was founded as a result of the Zionism movement, which called for a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland. This was a unique call to the Jewish people who had been discriminated against and oppressed - with no homeland of their own - for centuries. Though Jews are an ethnicity, they are part of many different races, and Jews from anywhere in the world are allowed to return to Israel.

That is compellingly and utterly different from the reasons as to why the US was founded (separation from church and state), which has historically been open to immigrants since its inception, first from Europe and then eventually the world.

There's nothing in the Constitution that prescribes where immigrants can come from. The word "immigration" is not even mentioned once.

 

[kbell]

Was the outcome of UK colonialism such a bad thing? What do you think is worse, Uk colonism, Islam spread, or illegal landscapers?

This thread will blow up. Probably 10 pages by tomorrow morning and some potential meltdowns.

Got popcorn ready.

 

[MrXY]

Again -- every situation is different. Israel is a tiny country which is fighting for its survival. There's just no comparison.

There most certainly is a comparison-every nation has a right to protect its sovereignty and to its citizens from foreign invasion.

Jews have been among the most loud-mouthed, active and deep-pocketed supporters of open border and massive immigration into Western countries yet are extremely restrictive on an ethno-religious basis as to who can be a citizen of Israel-a law they would be screeching about as a violation of human rights if any other country did it. Jews get automatic right to settle in Israel and citizenship. Imagine if the US had such a policy for whites or Christians-oy-veh!

The list of hypocritical double standards they practice is a lengthy one

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

You're describing Muslim immigrants to the UK in a way that befits British colonialists, a legacy that the UK still profits from. That's simply incorrect and disingenuous on your part. I haven't heard of any genocide in the UK. Maybe you're talking about a former British colony like Sudan (i.e. Darfur)?

Indians and Bangladeshis shouldn't be entitled to live in modern day Britain because of British colonialism 150 years ago. No idea what the hell you're even on about with that.

India and Pakistan achieved independence from Britain in 1947, not 150 years ago. Then Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) achieved independence from Pakistan in 1971.

Also, the British government offered immigration to people from the Indian subcontinent, in droves actually. It has been British government policy. After all, India was known as the "pearl of the British empire" and it no doubt was the major source of riches for the empire that spurred its industrial revolution.

I don't think you're in any position to say who should or shouldn't immigrate to the UK. You're not even British. Why do you care?

 

[The Lizard of Oz]

MrXY - I'm not talking about "rights". We have the right to do what we want and Israel or any other country can do what it wants. The simple point is that hispanic immigration into the US is not any kind of disaster and may well be good for the country. If the immigrants were different or the society was different, it might be a very different story. You have to look at the realities on the ground in each case.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Trust me, you don't want the US to emulate Middle Eastern countries. I've been to that region, including Israel, and don't envy those people for one second. They ALL wish they could be in the US and not live out Middle Age squabbles.

Forget about Israel, look at the United Arab Emirates. All of those Indians and Filipinos who immigrated there, some for backbreaking work, are never allowed to become citizens. Neither are their children who are born there.

Hell, Palestinians that live in neighboring Arab countries as refugees since 1967 aren't even allowed citizenship.

In Saudi Arabia it's technically illegal for Jews (from anywhere in the world) to visit the country.

That's what America should become? No thanks.

 

[scorpion]

Modern-day Israel was founded as a result of the Zionism movement, which called for a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland. This was a unique call to the Jewish people who had been discriminated against and oppressed - with no homeland of their own - for centuries. Though Jews are an ethnicity, they are part of many different races, and Jews from anywhere in the world are allowed to return to Israel.

That is compellingly and utterly different from the reasons as to why the US was founded (separation from church and state), which has historically been open to immigrants since its inception, first from Europe and then eventually the world.

There's nothing in the Constitution that prescribes where immigrants can come from.

You know what's funny? The United States used to have a similar law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act

The Emergency Quota Act restricted the number of immigrants admitted from any country annually to 3% of the number of residents from that same country living in the United States as of the U.S. Census of 1910. Based on that formula, the number of new immigrants admitted fell from 805,228 in 1920 to 309,556 in 1921-22.

The act meant that only people of Northern Europe who had similar cultures to that of America were likely to get in. The excuse was the American government wanted to protect its culture when this act was introduced.

So why is this no longer the case? That would be on account of this law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

The 1965 act marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. The law as it stood then excluded Latin Americans, Asians and Africans and preferred northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern ones.
...
In order to convince the American people of the legislation's merits, its proponents assured that passage would not influence America's culture significantly. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions", while Secretary of State Dean Rusk estimated only a few thousand Indian immigrants over the next five years, and other politicians, including Senator Ted Kennedy, hastened to reassure the populace that the demographic mix would not be affected; these assertions would later prove wildly inaccurate.

How did this law come to pass? For a detailed explanation, see: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/CofCchap7.pdf

In brief:

Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

And so we see Jews in the United States pushing for open immigration, while Jews in Israel literally run concentration camps to detain illegal immigrants. But no one is allowed to talk about that, because it would be "racist" or "anti-semitic". And so historically white countries are not allowed to defend themselves against the flood of immigrants, while the Jews who pushed for relaxed immigration in the West are brutally anti-immigrant in their homeland.

 

[The Lizard of Oz]

An interesting feature of the Emergency Quota Act:

The Act set no limits on immigration from Latin America.

 

[Luvianka]

Trust me, you don't want the US to emulate Middle Eastern countries. I've been to that region, including Israel, and don't envy those people for one second. They ALL wish they could be in the US and not live out Middle Age squabbles.

Forget about Israel, look at the United Arab Emirates. All of those Indians and Filipinos who immigrated there, some for backbreaking work, are never allowed to become citizens. Neither are their children who are born there.

Hell, Palestinians that live in neighboring Arab countries as refugees since 1967 aren't even allowed citizenship.

In Saudi Arabia it's technically illegal for Jews (from anywhere in the world) to visit the country.

That's what America should become? No thanks.

Europeans and Middle Easterns would change places with Americans any moment, any day.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

And so we see Jews in the United States pushing for open immigration, while Jews in Israel literally run concentration camps to detain illegal immigrants. But no one is allowed to talk about that, because it would be "racist" or "anti-semitic". And so historically white countries are not allowed to defend themselves against the flood of immigrants, while the Jews who pushed for relaxed immigration in the West are brutally anti-immigrant in their homeland.

American Jews are not necessarily equivalent to Israeli Jews. Jews in America may or may not support Zionism. In fact, a large number do not support Israel or are simply indifferent. The vast majority of American Jews do not have Israeli citizenship, and most have never even been to Israel. Some of the most strident critics of Israel are Jewish-Americans.

But on a separate note, you're advocating the resurrection of a racist law that prescribes where immigrants may come from. That's something a white nationalist would say. What's next? Schools and public venues should be segregated on the account of race? Lynchings should make a comeback too?

:facepalm:

 

[scorpion]

American Jews are not exactly equivalent to Israeli Jews. Jews in America may or may not support Zionism. In fact, a large number do not support Israel or are simply indifferent. The vast majority of American Jews do not have Israeli citizenship, and most have never even been to Israel. Some of the most ardent critics of Israel are Jewish-Americans.

But on a separate note, you're advocating the resurrection of a racist law that prescribes where immigrants may come from. That's something a white nationalist would say. What's next? Schools and public venues should be segregated on the account of race? Lynchings should make a comeback too?

The vast majority of U.S. Jews are strongly Pro-Israel. More importantly, however, literally almost 100% of influential American Jews are strongly pro-Israel. These are just facts.

As for calling that law racist, why, exactly? It simply called for the preservation of the existing racial demographics at the time. How can that be considered racist? It's the exact same thing Israel is doing today, which you have no problem with. In both cases each country was/is simply trying to preserve its existing racial composition. If you think this is immoral and racist, then tell me how you'd feel about white people moving into Africa and gradually displacing the native blacks. Why is it only racist when white people want to preserve their racial homogeneity in their traditional lands, but Asians, Blacks and Jews are encouraged to do just that?

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

American Jews are not exactly equivalent to Israeli Jews. Jews in America may or may not support Zionism. In fact, a large number do not support Israel or are simply indifferent. The vast majority of American Jews do not have Israeli citizenship, and most have never even been to Israel. Some of the most ardent critics of Israel are Jewish-Americans.

But on a separate note, you're advocating the resurrection of a racist law that prescribes where immigrants may come from. That's something a white nationalist would say. What's next? Schools and public venues should be segregated on the account of race? Lynchings should make a comeback too?

The vast majority of U.S. Jews are strongly Pro-Israel. More importantly, however, literally almost 100% of influential American Jews are strongly pro-Israel. These are just facts.

As for calling that law racist, why, exactly? It simply called for the preservation of the existing racial demographics at the time. How can that be considered racist? It's the exact same thing Israel is doing today, which you have no problem with. In both cases each country was/is simply trying to preserve its existing racial composition. If you think this is immoral and racist, then tell me how you'd feel about white people moving into Africa and gradually displacing the native blacks. Why is it only racist when white people want to preserve their racial homogeneity in their traditional lands, but Asians, Blacks and Jews are encouraged to do just that?

That link you cited from JPost (a center-right or right wing Israeli publication) is completely bogus. The headline was of its own making, not a logical conclusion from the survey that was conducted.

Read the actual article, which you googled since it was from 2011.

How is the following tantamount to strong support for Israel?

"94% say that if Jewish state "no longer existed tomorrow," it would be a "tragedy.""

That's a very illogical conclusion to suggest that's evidence of strong support. One would reasonably assume the premise for the country not existing would be the result of a catastrophic attack. Of course that's a tragedy, anywhere in the world. That doesn't signify strong support in the least.

Read this recent article form Wash Post using logical questions without a disingenuous haedline.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ends-in-how-american-jews-think-about-israel/

In fact, Evangelical Christians are more pro-Israel than Jewish Americans.

If you look at media, academia, etc, some of the most influential Jewish-Americans are critical of Israeli policies. Just listen to NPR or read a NYT op-ed on the subject.

As for your second point. is that a serious question? Permitting immigration strictly from northern Europe is not racist? I think you got lost and thought you were in your white nationalist forum.

 

[Quintus Curtius]

The inescapable laws of history tell us that peoples, nations, and tribes that are not willing to protect their identities will be absorbed or conquered by other groups.

Who now calls himself a Parthian, Jute, Phyrgian, Hittite, Phoenician, Etruscan, or Carthaginian? These are nations that failed to preserve their identities, and got swallowed up in the maw of population movements. There are scores of such nations in history.

The same thing with languages. Many languages in the world are currently headed for extinction. They will survive only if the people speaking them wish to preserve them. It is that simple. History is a cruel arbiter of fate. The resourceful and strong will persist, and the others who fail the ultimate test will succumb.

So, people have every right to seek greener pastures on better soil. I don't begrudge the immigrants their desire to better themselves. But I'm not going to let them pick my pocket. They have a right to try to better themselves, but I also have a right to fight their attempt to take what I have. If our governments in the West care about the survival of our traditions and culture, they will take steps to control immigration in a manageable form. If they do nothing, then they have spoken before the tribunal of history. They will have been judged, and found wanting.

So, either we will pass the test of history, or we will not. Immigration that is controlled and gradual can do wonders for the health of a nation, by injecting a tired strain with a fresh infusion of blood. But if allowed to become an avalanche, then it looks more like an invasion.

 

[scorpion]

HC, you ignored the part of my post that said: "More importantly, however, literally almost 100% of influential American Jews are strongly pro-Israel."

No one gives a shit if Shlomo the Brooklyn Deli owner is ambivalent toward Israel. When 90+% of influential Jews in media and government all push the Zionist agenda, however, you can't pretend that's not happening.

But honestly, what's the point of continuing this? You're obviously anti-white. And you've labeled me a white nationalist. So this debate is going nowhere. We'll see what the future holds. Frankly, though, I think your way of thinking is on the way out. Multiculturalism and immigration have been a complete disaster for the West, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to hide that fact. You can cry racism all you want, but in the end it's simply going to come down to self-preservation. The guilt trip only works for so long. As Quintius pointed out, if a people wish to survive, they must actively protect their identity. The ideology of multiculturalism is in direct opposition to this goal, so white countries will either wake up and return to "racist" (as you would say) policies, or they will simply cease to exist.

I can't speak for you, but personally, I'd rather be a racist than have my people cease to exist.

 

[kbell]

1000 jews is a pretty small sample size to determine if 94% of all American Jews care about Israel. A lot only care about it due to Birthright, which is sort of a buying favor sort of deal. I would think it would be more like 60%. However American Jews tend to be very liberal (since they gave up religion for some culture tribal version of Judaism, with believe in Statism as the true belief). Israeli Jews had some religion although there is several different classes of this. And those different classes are at odds with each other. Especially the Haredi and the secular. But as a whole they tend to be more hawkish and conservative.

 

[Veloce]

Mad props to the guy in the original article. Why?

Because he hustled the system. And I'd like to think that's what RVF and Red Pill is about.

You can't compare Mexican immigration into the U.S. with Muslims in Europe. Completely different scenario.

The entire Southwest belonged to Mexico just 150 years ago. That includes California and most of Texas, which are #1 and #2 largest GDP in the union. Something to think about before you complain about "them illegals coming over here stealing our jobs."

Okay, my taxes and your taxes and everyone's taxes contribute to their welfare, even if they don't pay into our social systems. Yawn. There are much, much, bigger fish to fry in the injustices of our political and legal system.

If you think there's a problem with them taking unskilled labor jobs then you're dead wrong. There are plenty of unskilled labor jobs but today's millenials don't want them. Okay inflation has risen so minimum wage has not been adjusted in decades but you can't blame that on immigration. In fact, I would be willing to bet you that you could pay a living wage to strawberry pickers, nannies, and dishwashers, and you would still not find any white kids taking those jobs.

In any healthy economy you need unskilled labor and skilled labor. If you're a skilled laborer, it benefits you GREATLY to have the cheapest unskilled laborer possible. Any other model is simply outdated and it's time to adapt. The world is getting smaller by the day and if you can't figure out how to hustle the system then get the hell out of the gene pool.

 

[Veloce]

Frankly, though, I think your way of thinking is on the way out. Multiculturalism and immigration have been a complete disaster for the West, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to hide that fact. You can cry racism all you want, but in the end it's simply going to come down to self-preservation. The guilt trip only works for so long. As Quintius pointed out, if a people wish to survive, they must actively protect their identity. The ideology of multiculturalism is in direct opposition to this goal, so white countries will either wake up and return to "racist" (as you would say) policies, or they will simply cease to exist.

I can't speak for you, but personally, I'd rather be a racist than have my people cease to exist.

From a historical perspective, this is a fallacy. There is no such thing as "protecting their identity", and those who have tried have failed. We can admire instances of nationalism with guys like Putin but it's a narrow-sighted anomaly.

What is French? What is Italian? There are no such things. These are very recent terms to refer to people but without a historical reference point most people just don't get that. Sicily is in Italy but you'd never know it by talking to the people there. They're Sicilian! Or so they think. It's false. They've been mixing with Middle Easterners, North Africans, and Greeks for centuries. You can go back thousands of years to the time of Phrygians and Babylonians. And who were they? Just another culture that came, went, mixed with others.

Every country is like this. There is no such thing as nationalism. Nationalism is something that dictators use to manipulate their population and it's a very powerful form of mind control, not to mention highly short-sighted.

Look at systems in nature. Nature is self-organizing. We're on a path of globalization and mixed races. We've got Filipinos in the middle east for fuck's sake. Languages are going to die at an increased rate, all of the world's cultures are going to be packed up in museums, global housing will become increasingly homogenized. We are, first and foremost, a species. In a few millennia or sooner, the entire Earth will resemble a beehive of humanity (if we don't kill ourselves off) and they'll read in history books about all the different cuisines the world used to have.

It's already happening.

 

[scorpion]

From a historical perspective, this is a fallacy. There is no such thing as "protecting their identity", and those who have tried have failed. We can admire instances of nationalism with guys like Putin but it's a narrow-sighted anomaly.

What is French? What is Italian? There are no such things. These are very recent terms to refer to people but without a historical reference point most people just don't get that. Sicily is in Italy but you'd never know it by talking to the people there. They're Sicilian! Or so they think. It's false. They've been mixing with Middle Easterners, North Africans, and Greeks for centuries. You can go back thousands of years to the time of Phrygians and Babylonians. And who were they? Just another culture that came, went, mixed with others.

Every country is like this. There is no such thing as nationalism. Nationalism is something that dictators use to manipulate their population and it's a very powerful form of mind control, not to mention highly short-sighted.

Look at systems in nature. Nature is self-organizing. We're on a path of globalization and mixed races. We've got Filipinos in the middle east for fuck's sake. Languages are going to die at an increased rate, all of the world's cultures are going to be packed up in museums, global housing will become increasingly homogenized. We are, first and foremost, a species. In a few millennia or sooner, the entire Earth will resemble a beehive of humanity (if we don't kill ourselves off) and they'll read in history books about all the different cuisines the world used to have.

It's already happening.

You're a chef, so this is a good analogy. Assume you have the following:

• A jar of mayonnaise
• A bottle of chocolate syrup
• A banana
• A packet of chili powder
• A can of lard
• Ground coffee

You mix them all together in a blender.

Do you think what you've made is an improvement over the individual ingredients?

How is humanity best served by mixing all the races of the Earth into a single, mongrelized race? You realize you are advocating for genocide, right? It sounds all Kumbaya, but you're basically saying that you don't want black people, Asian people, Whites, Mestizos, etc.. to exist anymore. You just want a single shade of brown. Personally, I find that horrifying. I want black people, Asians, whites and all other races to continue to exist as unique groups. I want a diversity of races and cultures across the globe. What the hell is the point of traveling, otherwise? How could you honestly support a global racial monoculture? It's positively dystopian.

 

[EisenBarde]

California and Texas were never really part of Mexico. They were the remains of a disintegrating Spanish Empire populated mostly by dwindling numbers of indigenous peoples.

There's more Mexicans living today in almost any podunk ag town in the central valley than there were in all that "conquered" terrritory ceded during the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

It's just Part II of the same economic and social factors that hit California during the dust bowl.