Third World Immigration Controls Save Denmark Billions of Pounds- attn US citizens

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Lucrum:

So just because it's easier for Japan to limit immigration than say the US, which borders a third world shit hole, we should not be limiting immigration?

No, we need a plan that works for us. Treaties do not allow us to put troops on the southern border. We need a plan that works within the parameters of the problems we face.

 

[good ole boy]

Quote from Artful D0dger:

Perhaps we could use some of that stimulus money and hire the Danish People's Party as consultants for an immigration reform over here. As far as I know, they are the only nation in the west to adopt such a policy, and they are the only one's who aren't being negatively affected by immigration.

No, but if you lampoon Muhammed over there you'll get castrated and beheaded by some of your new fellow Danes. You see, you get other savings when you tweak immigration policy.

 

[Artful D0dger]

Apparently not.

http://danishaffairs.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/anti-islamic-hall-of-fame-denmark-and-netherlands/

Quote from good ole boy:

No, but if you lampoon Muhammed over there you'll get castrated and beheaded by some of your new fellow Danes. You see, you get other savings when you tweak immigration policy.

 

[Artful D0dger]

Bullshit. We need troops on our souther border. No treaty absolves us of a right to have OUR troops on OUR land. Try again.

What we need are troops on the border, and a mass deportation of every illegal we can find. Follow that with a policy which heavily discourages 3rd world immigration. Also, legal 3rd world immigrants could be offered incentives to leave.

Quote from RCG Trader:

No, we need a plan that works for us. Treaties do not allow us to put troops on the southern border. We need a plan that works within the parameters of the problems we face.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:

Treaties do not allow us to put troops on the southern border.

I just know you're going to substantiate that claim.

We need a plan that works within the parameters of the problems we face.

Stopping third world peasants from invading us en masse IS a plan. You just don't happen to like it because you're obsessed with anything that can possibly be construed as "racism".

 

[Artful D0dger]

They are generally obsessed with anything which makes the USA less white (aka "diverse" or "multicultural")

Quote from Lucrum:

I just know you're going to substantiate that claim. Stopping third world peasants from invading us en masse IS a plan. You just don't happen to like it because you're obsessed with anything that can possibly be construed as "racism".

 

[Ricter]

Quote from good ole boy:

On average, the Western immigrant imparts no net cost to the country. This means Denmark could use greater discrimination in
its immigration criteria to further reduce drag upon the nation. Population and workforce can in part be shaped by efficiency standards in the selection of the pool of applicants. Other concerns, such as cultural linkages between two countries, can play a different role based on different criteria.

So it's not actually about their origin, but their money. I'm not objecting, many countries limit independent immigration to those with sufficient money.

 

[Artful D0dger]

But that's not what Denmark did, their immigration has favored not financial status, but ethnic origins. Turns out, that's worked out very well for them.

Quote from Ricter:

So it's not actually about their origin, but their money. I'm not objecting, many countries limit independent immigration to those with sufficient money.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Lucrum:

I just know you're going to substantiate that claim. Stopping third world peasants from invading us en masse IS a plan. You just don't happen to like it because you're obsessed with anything that can possibly be construed as "racism".

Of course, Lucrum, I take debate in it's classical form, so I use classical rules.

I misspoke about the treaties. This is the source of my claim.

Posse Comitatus Act of of 1878.

A law enacted in 1878 to prohibit the use of the U.S. army in civilian law enforcement, unless otherwise instructed by the president, thereby excluding the military from the civilian sphere. After President Ulysses S. Grant sent a posse comitatus to the polls in the election of 1876, it was presented by Southern Democratic members of the House who resented the use of federal troops during Reconstruction.

I got this from a call from a Texas Rancher off the Glen Beck show who was complaining that they could get no federal help with the drug cartels. Another caller who happened to be in the New Mexico Guard said that they could go, but could only watch. The above Act is the reason.

 

[Artful D0dger]

1) That's not a treaty.

2) CIVILIAN law enforcement. Preventing illegal immigration is not CIVILIAN law enforcement.

"Again, study". LOL!

Quote from RCG Trader:

Of course, Lucrum, I take debate in it's classical form, so I use classical rules.

I misspoke about the treaties. This is the source of my claim.

Posse Comitatus Act of of 1878.

A law enacted in 1878 to prohibit the use of the U.S. army in civilian law enforcement, unless otherwise instructed by the president, thereby excluding the military from the civilian sphere. After President Ulysses S. Grant sent a posse comitatus to the polls in the election of 1876, it was presented by Southern Democratic members of the House who resented the use of federal troops during Reconstruction.

I got this from a call from a Texas Rancher off the Glen Beck show who was complaining that they could get no federal help with the drug cartels. Another caller who happened to be in the New Mexico Guard said that they could go, but could only watch. The above Act is the reason.