The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Americans First – Citizenism as a Moral Principle to Regulate Immigration

xbuzzerx said:
You're right. That's yellow nationalism I suppose. Or actually more specifically it's Japanese nationalism, because it's applied arguably even more starkly against certain other Asian groups like Koreans and Filipinos residing in Japan than it is against western visitors or residents. Though within the context of a discussion about U.S. policy we would be invariably talking about white nationalism or white nativism. Benvolio is merely the 21st century version of the Irish who spearheaded the Chinese Exclusion Act, which somehow never reduced the need for government regulation, union action to demand safer and better workplace environments and employee compensation, aggressive anti-trust policy from the U.S. government, etc.
Click to expand...
What is the motivation of the advocates of massive immigration? Clearly they do not care about our poor and unemployed Nor about wages. Nor about the environment. Nor crime. Nor education.
 
Benvolio said:
What is the motivation of the advocates of massive immigration? Clearly they do not care about our poor and unemployed Nor about wages. Nor about the environment. Nor crime. Nor education.
Click to expand...

Point out an "advocate of massive immigration."
 
xbuzzerx said:
You're right. That's yellow nationalism I suppose. Or actually more specifically it's Japanese nationalism, because it's applied arguably even more starkly against certain other Asian groups like Koreans and Filipinos residing in Japan than it is against western visitors or residents. Though within the context of a discussion about U.S. policy we would be invariably talking about white nationalism or white nativism. Benvolio is merely the 21st century version of the Irish who spearheaded the Chinese Exclusion Act, which somehow never reduced the need for government regulation, union action to demand safer and better workplace environments and employee compensation, aggressive anti-trust policy from the U.S. government, etc.
Click to expand...


My point was only that masking this agenda under some supposed economic benefit is transparently false, because Sailer's ideas have actually been tried in other countries and found to fail. Benvolio's brand of policy from the xenophobic wing of the Republican party not only has no economic policy rationale, is actually understood to be bad economics by those who study the economy.

Countries that support labour mobility are making the smarter economic choice. I'm not in favour of immigration because its the more "moral" choice or the more "progressive" choice or the more "redistributive" choice or the choice with the greatest "social justice" or whatever silly scaremongering label one might want to apply to it. I'm in favour of labour mobility because to do otherwise would cost us all money. It is the more economically rational choice; the choice to create more wealth, more efficiently, and advance our prosperity.

Let people work where the employers will have them, and keep Benvolio's government red tape out of the immigration department.
 
bankside said:
I'm not in favour of immigration because its the more "moral" choice or the more "progressive" choice or the more "redistributive" choice or the choice with the greatest "social justice" or whatever silly scaremongering label one might want to apply to it. I'm in favour of labour mobility because to do otherwise would cost us all money. It is the more economically rational choice; the choice to create more wealth, more efficiently, and advance our prosperity.
Click to expand...

There is a major difference between "wanting all immigration under any circumstances for inclusivity" and "wanting to curtail specific groups because of prejudice and stereotyped beliefs about their drain on society."

I doubt very much that Benvolio's rants about immigration apply to UK or Canadian immigration or to immigrants who are approved due to a skilled technical profession. His discussions about immigration have invariably focused entirely on hispanics as if they constitute all immigration.
 
Benvolio said:
A million a year legally is massive. A million next year, and the next, and the next.
Click to expand...

Here let me be more direct:

What is the motivation of the advocates of massive immigration? Clearly they do not care about our poor and unemployed Nor about wages. Nor about the environment. Nor crime. Nor education.
Click to expand...

You don't care about the poor, the unemployed or about wages either-- or the environment. You have made your stance fairly clear that you are on the side of business and that all conditions should be made as "business-friendly" as possible. You also favor tax cuts which have resulted over the last couple of decades in increasing costs of education, even for in-state students paying in-state rates for public educations. The most that can possibly be said of you is that if certain situations happen to indirectly result in an improvement in worker conditions or compensation or benefits, that's nice and all. But by no means have you ever proved yourself any sort of friend to real and binding ways to ensure minimums of those things, you want to let corporations decide it.

So, I'm sorry, "scaremongering" at people who don't agree with you that they want to hurt the poor is not persuasive in the slightest coming from you.
 
xbuzzerx said:
Here let me be more direct:



You don't care about the poor, the unemployed or about wages either-- or the environment. You have made your stance fairly clear that you are on the side of business and that all conditions should be made as "business-friendly" as possible. You also favor tax cuts which have resulted over the last couple of decades in increasing costs of education, even for in-state students paying in-state rates for public educations. The most that can possibly be said of you is that if certain situations happen to indirectly result in an improvement in worker conditions or compensation or benefits, that's nice and all. But by no means have you ever proved yourself any sort of friend to real and binding ways to ensure minimums of those things, you want to let corporations decide it.

So, I'm sorry, "scaremongering" at people who don't agree with you that they want to hurt the poor is not persuasive in the slightest coming from you.
Click to expand...
You still did not answer my question. What is the motivation of those who favor immigration? My views favor preserving the free enterprise system which has given us the greatest economy in history. But even if I am as evil as you believe, how does that justify the wrongs to which you are an accomplice? Two wrongs do not make a right.
 
Benvolio said:
You still did not answer my question. What is the motivation of those who favor immigration? My views favor preserving the free enterprise system which has given us the greatest economy in history. But even if I am as evil as you believe, how does that justify the wrongs to which you are an accomplice? Two wrongs do not make a right.
Click to expand...

Free enterprise is not free if the government interferes when a business wants to hire a foreigner.
 
Benvolio said:
You still did not answer my question. What is the motivation of those who favor immigration? My views favor preserving the free enterprise system which has given us the greatest economy in history. But even if I am as evil as you believe, how does that justify the wrongs to which you are an accomplice? Two wrongs do not make a right.
Click to expand...

That immigration has always benefitted the United States throughout its entire history, even including periods of time where the foreign-born immigrant population was of a much higher proportion than it is today.

Allowing immigration and working on an economic structure which offers decent employment and decent compensation are not mutually exclusive. You have never offered anything other than a circumstantial argument along the lines of "look how many immigrants came in, now look at the unemployment rate." Unless there was an enormously high surge of immigration during the Bush years, your argument falls apart as an explanation for the unemployment rate, which has a lot more to do with the economic collapse which was brought about by unregulated domestic speculation in the housing market--- not by immigrants.

You don't substantiate any of the things you claim---- probably because the facts don't support your position.
 
pat grimshaw said:
Has anyone mentioned those native people in this thread?
Click to expand...

Nope. They're not really relevant in the discussion either other than the fact that, like blacks, they have been subject to unique circumstances which have put them out of the flow of normal upward mobility. Removal to arid undeveloped areas in the middle of nowhere, for instance.
 
xbuzzerx said:
There is a major difference between "wanting all immigration under any circumstances for inclusivity" and "wanting to curtail specific groups because of prejudice and stereotyped beliefs about their drain on society."

I doubt very much that Benvolio's rants about immigration apply to UK or Canadian immigration or to immigrants who are approved due to a skilled technical profession. His discussions about immigration have invariably focused entirely on hispanics as if they constitute all immigration.
Click to expand...

Except he wants that stopped, too -- he opposes all immigration until all Americans are employed.
 
xbuzzerx said:
Nope. They're not really relevant in the discussion either other than the fact that, like blacks, they have been subject to unique circumstances which have put them out of the flow of normal upward mobility. Removal to arid undeveloped areas in the middle of nowhere, for instance.
Click to expand...

I guessed some of them would have been making good lives living in those arid areas for thousands of years. They were doing so for thousands and thousands of years in the deserts on my island before those Euros came and brought their diseases.
 
pat grimshaw said:
I guessed some of them would have been making good lives living in those arid areas for thousands of years. They were doing so for thousands and thousands of years in the deserts on my island before those Euros came and brought their diseases.
Click to expand...

Many more of them were not at all accustomed to the climates or regions they were placed into, and the ones who were were in large part no longer able to sustain the lifestyle they had before due to government restrictions and the encroachment of white settlement. For example, in many arid areas that have Native American reservations, the climate is actually ideal for largescale industrial and commercial hemp agriculture--- but this has been steadfastly rejected by the Federal Government on the argument that it conflicts with standing drug bans, even with strains of hemp whose THC content is demonstrably far too low to have any recreational or pharmaceutical use. Simply one example of many. The fact that all tribes have great difficulty in attaining assets to start industries because U.S. banks simply would not extend them credit and because most of their assets are held in a perpetual state of trust and cannot be used for the purposes of acquiring loans or credit would be another--- the first gaming tribes had to go to Asian lenders overseas in order to raise the capital because American lenders would not extend any credit to tribes.

Of course, this all remains off topic Pat. But I think you're quite aware of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top