No, I laugh at those who think that everyone they talk to MUST agree with their view of American citizenship
Zep, you've expressed
no view of US citizenship other than that it's "meaningless". Given that, there is no middle ground for you and I to agree on, so it's downright silly for you complain about my particular views of American citizenship and it's value.
It shows they have a highly blinkered view of the world
No, it merely shows that I value US citizenship and you don't. Nothing blinkered about it. In fact, most of the world's countries guard citizenship far more than America and treat illegals far more severely. Including Mexico. Including Australia.
anything outside their own little world of Fortress Amerika is somehow wrong and not worth thinking about.
Let's talk about *Fortress Australia*? It's nice to live on a big island with hundreds/thousands of miles separating you from the hungry, poor masses of the third world. But when a few of them do manage to make it to Australia, what's it's reaction? If you are all that concerned about a country trying to build a *fortress* against illegals, why don't you take umbrage at this:
http://www.danielpipes.org/50/australias-crisis-of-illegal-immigration
September 5, 2001
Something unprecedented and possibly highly significant happened last week in Australia, when the government resorted to military force to keep out 434 would-be refugees, nearly all of them from Afghanistan, along with some Pakistanis and Sri Lankans.
… snip …
Prime Minister John Howard forbade it from entering the country's territory, saying that Australia cannot be seen "as a country of easy destination." The captain obeyed, stopping just nine kilometers outside Australian waters.
But two days later, citing health problems among the Afghans, he moved the Tampa into Australian waters, heading toward land. In response, saying he must "draw a line on what is increasingly becoming an uncontrollable number of illegal arrivals" Howard sent crack Australian troops to board the ship and prevent it from reaching land.
… snip …
polls showed that a resounding 78 percent of Australians backed Howard's "resolve," and his party gained five percentage points in popularity. This broad support reflected two public worries.
The first is a sizable growth of illegal immigration, mostly of Afghans, Iraqis and Iranians. The 11 days before the Tampa's arrival saw more than 1,500 illegals landing in Australia on small boats, and reports were circulating of another 5,000 would-be immigrants readying to set sail from Indonesia. Many Australians felt under siege.
Oh my gosh. Australia felt under
"siege" because a few thousand people were planning to illegally enter the country. Imagine if you had a land bridge to Asia and had a few MILLION planning to sneak in? With Asian drug lords helping them. What would you do then? Claim you don't care about Australian citizenship? If so, you'd be in the minority:
http://ussc.edu.au/news-room/Austra...s-on-illegal-immigration-A-comparative-survey
19 August 2010
An election-campaign survey commissioned by the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney in conjunction with Stanford University has found that Australians are more concerned about illegal immigration than those in the United States.
… snip …
76 per cent of Australians believe that increasing numbers of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are an important problem for the country whereas in the US, where the number of illegal immigrants in 2009 was estimated by the US Department of Homeland Security at nearly 11 million, 71 per cent rate it as important.
And how does that affect Australian policy?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...urge-in-illegals/story-e6frg8yx-1225697112233
April 15, 2009
AUSTRALIA is urging Indonesia to do more to crack down on people-smugglers as the Rudd Government braces for a new wave of more sophisticated illegal boat arrivals.
http://www.afgana.org/showart.php?id=660&rubrica=218
19/01/2011
Illegal Afghan Immigrants in Australia will be forcibly repatriated to their homeland under a new refugee deal.
Yet here was the magnitude of Australia's problem:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.htm
Population 21 million. Number of refugees who arrived by boat? A few thousand. Now if that number was scaled to the size of the US population, that'd be about 30,000-40,000 people. Multiply that by 50-100 and you begin to get an idea of the problem facing the US, compared to Australia.
FYI: Reality is I think it is fine for US citizens to be proud of their country and to be prepared to defend and secure it. If they want a fence, build one. For all the good it will do.
Well I think it will do a lot of good. Think of it as America's version of an ocean between the it and the source of the illegals.
Quote:
So tell us, Zep, where in anything I've written on this thread have I suggested or even implied that "ANY immigration should be considered illegal" … just to play back the statement that caused me to note that you were the one looking "stupid" and "needlessly foolish"?
You certainly don't seem in favour of it, particularly from Mexico.
FALSE. I have not said a single thing about legal immigration from Mexico being bad. Not one statement. I just don't see the wisdom of taking in millions of Mexico's poorest and least educated people and giving them all the benefits of US citizenship (including free health care and free educations) without taking any steps to stop that flow. And Australia doesn't see the benefit of taking in people with out jobs or skills either. Go check out your own immigration laws, Zep.
Your argument here is against the virtual fence concept as being entirely ineffectual.
Yes, and I think even our government agrees.
That is, you want something that is actually effectual instead. You then posited the notion of no amnesty (i.e. throw them back)
No, I never said "throw them back". "No amnesty
until" means *no amnesty
until*. What I said is there should be no discussion of what to do with the illegals that are in this country until there is a real barrier to prevent future illegal immigration. THEN I imagine there will be some form of amnesty. But handing another amnesty out without first building a barrier to further illegal immigration has already been proven not to solve the underlying problem. It's already proven that handing out amnesty without a barrier in place only means more illegal immigration down the road and demands for yet another future amnesty. We've already been through this experience TWICE. You'd think we'd learn. Well some of us have. So no ... we're not going to do that again ... not without a major political fight.
And we haven't even gotten into who pays for it
Well it's obvious who pays for it. The US taxpayer. But the final cost won't be very much since I showed above that the savings that will result from preventing 95% or more of illegal immigration will easily exceed the cost of building even the most magnificent fence/wall system. So your cost argument is nothing more than a red herring.
or what to do with Canada.
As is this complaint. Canada is not a problem that has to be solved at the same time as the problem of the Mexican border. It's not even a problem that comes close to the magnitude of the problem on the Mexican border. And there is no inexpensive way for millions of poor illegals to get into Canada and make it a problem. I'm pretty sure that if they tried, Canada would build fences around their own airports because the number of illegals who would then try to remain in wonderful Canada would be far more than that country is willing to tolerate. Canada problem solved.
Quote:
Yet here you are on this thread.
...digging you in the ribs.
You haven't accomplished anything here, Zep, other than embarrass yourself … make yourself look stupid and needlessly foolish by misquoting me.
You have any objections to non-Americans being interested in America?
Not at all. Would you like to honestly discuss the efficacy of fences and walls, rather than dishonestly suggest this is about my wanting to ban "all immigration"?
I can speak and write many "dialects", including a variety of Australian, British and US regional styles. I also write "computer" and "scientific" as well.
Good for you. That doesn't make my not being aware you are Australian "obvious". That only makes my point.
