If they can do it why can't we?
Bermuda boots out its longtime immigrants:
A British family who lived in the colony of Bermuda for 20 years were ordered to leave because its government is clamping down on immigrants from Britain. Stephen and Kirsty Tomlinson and their two children were given barely a month to get off the North Atlantic island after his workplace burned down. Now the couple have swapped sandy beaches and sunshine for concrete and drizzle after returning to Mr Tomlinson’s home town of Hull, east Yorkshire. They were ordered to leave despite their daughter Holly, 12 and son Joseph, six, being born in Bermuda, a British overseas territory in the North Atlantic.It is ironic indeed that Brits are being kicked out of Commonwealth nations even as millions of Commonwealth citizens are permitted residence in Britain. And it is simply ludicrous that the wealthy Western nations continue to pretend that what other nations are doing to their citizens is either impossible or immoral. Notice that once the British man lost his job, he was given one month to leave despite the fact that they'd been there for 20 years and their children were born there. And furthermore, notice that mere place of birth is not sufficient to provide citizenship.
Labels: immigration
67 Comments:
VD, while that illustrates the point "it can be done", it does really show, how is that situation beneficial for anyone?
Unless for you there's no distinction between immigrants, who do not want to work, cause an increase in crime, do not obey the laws of their host nation etc., and the aforementioned case?
How is booting what seems to be a hard working family out of the country a good thing?
Granted that they should have applied for citizenship when they had the chance.
Still, one wonders how many immigrant "leeches" are still in Bermuda and why a family that, at least doesn't seem to be that way, are deported?
Years ago in Canada, specifically Toronto, Canadian Immigration pulled this little stunt:
They offered to legalize any illegal immigrants that were here from Portugal, they would get legal immigrant status providing they showed they were employed and such.
Those that came forward were deported.
The ones that didn't, you know the ones that wanted to stay illegal and leech of the system and not pay into the system, they stayed here.
So the singles AND families that WANTED to be part of the legal system got deported and the ones that wanted to stay OUTSIDE the legal system stayed.
Politicians are their best.
How is booting what seems to be a hard working family out of the country a good thing?
I guess that is up to Bermuda. The point is that people can be deported after a long period of time, and after having anchor babies. Because we are told it can't be done, with our own population of immigrants.
See! It is those Englishmen that cause trouble for countries. We should kick out Englishmen too! (We probably should have tried Keynes for treason, or crimes against humanity given the damage he caused).
In our case, since we've had more than 3 gnerations of idiots on our supreme court, the "living document" that had an amendment to deal with newly emancipated slaves being considered citizens is now used to give rights to "anchor babies" - although the US Customs service will tell you (usually in an unpleasant manner) that you have no rights until you cross into the USA (I forget the exact wording), but that you aren't on US Soil until you (properly, legally) pass through customs.
So if I run through the border gate and into a hospital ER, they won't bother me?
Its that they were contibuting that makes the point. The USA is filled with non-contributing illegals that will never be kicked out even though its within the governements power and best interest to do so. I live in a large southern border city, so I see it first hand. Illegals come over to cheat the system because it CAN be cheated.
*vapors*
How horrible! Those people were there just looking to make a better life for themselves. What kind of right-wing, backward, ignorant, white males are running Bermuda anyway?
Furthermore, if his place of employment burned down, he's currently no longer benefits Bermuda. Besides, I'm sure that the employer will quite easily replace him with a native.
I fail to see how "good" enters into the equation.
> And furthermore, notice that mere place of birth is not sufficient to provide citizenship.
True. The US is largely unique in that regard. Mind you, that's a uniqueness I'd like to continue, but...
And before anyone starts screaming about anchor babies and such, please note that just because a child is born here, there's no requirement that child be allowed to stay. If his parents are illegal immigrants, the child goes back with them unless they're willing to give up him up to foster parents who have volunteer to take him. That precedent has already been legally established in the Gonzales case. Elian was, by law, a US citizen. He was still returned to his father. Once the child comes of age, he can claim his citizenship and return if he wants.
It is ironic indeed that Brits are being kicked out of Commonwealth nations even as millions of Commonwealth citizens are permitted residence in Britain.
Bermuda isn't even a Commonwealth Nation. It's a British Overseas Territory with its citizens being full British citizens who can work in any EU country and Britain at will.
Britain is so effin' whipped the can't even get reciprocity from their own territories. It would be like nobody from Pennsylvania being able to stay in Puerto Rico.
This was a painter and a beautician. They were foreigners occupying the jobs that any native Bermudan could have.
The fact that they "contribute" is immaterial when their opportunity to contribute is afforded to them at the cost of natives. Its one thing if he had a unique skill, and Bermuda a unique industry in need of him until he could be replaced with a native.
Does Tomlinson own property in Bermuda? If the article said so, I missed that.
Aren't libertarians supposed to be for private property and against expropriation?
"James Dixon May 07, 2012 1:47 PM
That precedent has already been legally established in the Gonzales case. Elian was, by law, a US citizen.
"
How was Elian Gonzales,"by law", an American citizen? Both his parents were born in Cuba, as was Elian himself.
How does he claim U.S. citizenship?
Aren't libertarians supposed to be for private property and against expropriation?
some property owners are more equal than others
Poor Bermudans have caught the white man virus, the obvious solution to this is more multiculti in white men's cuntries.
Daniel Hewitt
Aren't libertarians supposed to be for private property and against expropriation?
Heh. Libertarians aren't supposed do do anything. Besides, this isn't about expropriation, or politics, but law and economics. They are unlawful occupants of a territory. There's no cognitive dissonance for a libertarian who supports immigrant control.
Any Cuban refugee who sets foot on US soil is granted special exemptions from the normal immigration policies:
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Refugee_Adjustment_Act
However, the above makes clear that you're correct and I misunderstood the actual law. He wasn't a full US Citizen yet. He merely had the right under US law to pursue US citizenship, supposedly without fear of being returned to Cuba.
Nonetheless, the cases till sets the precedent that the child goes with his parents until of age.
I guess that is up to Bermuda. The point is that people can be deported after a long period of time, and after having anchor babies.
The children in this story weren't anchor babies.
Paul Sacramento: Years ago in Canada, specifically Toronto, Canadian Immigration pulled this little stunt:
They offered to legalize any illegal immigrants that were here from Portugal, they would get legal immigrant status providing they showed they were employed and such. Those that came forward were deported. The ones that didn't, you know the ones that wanted to stay illegal and leech of the system and not pay into the system, they stayed here. So the singles AND families that WANTED to be part of the legal system got deported and the ones that wanted to stay OUTSIDE the legal system stayed. Politicians are their best.
What you're failing to grasp here is that the scam worked exactly as those in charge planned. Your error is in the assumption that the regime wanted those that wished to be productive. The Kanuckistani regime is no different from those running of every other western country. They do not not want productive, civic-minded people who produce but more 'clients' for the ever-expanding state apparat. The non-productive welfare-sucking parasites are exactly the ones who they wanted to remain.
There's no cognitive dissonance for a libertarian who supports immigrant control.
There certainly is Daniel, if the immigration control is done by the state, which is what Vox is cheerleading for here. On the other hand, immigration control by private property owners is perfectly aligned with libertarian priciples (see Hans-Hermann Hoppe). In the case of Bermuda, native Bermudans who dislike English people would simply exclude them from their property.
Kennedian: How horrible! Those people were there just looking to make a better life for themselves. What kind of right-wing, backward, ignorant, white males are running Bermuda anyway?
The kind who look as if they could be Sons of Obama (if he had sons).
There certainly is Daniel, if the immigration control is done by the state, which is what Vox is cheerleading for here.
Yes, the same state established by the US Constitution. Throw out that state and what do you have? Rule by the United Nations. That's precisely what I meant by free trade dictating global citizenship.
Hans Hoppe and the anti-state libertarians were wrong. Man does not have a choice between nothing and the state, but a choice between the nation-state and the global State.
Daniel Hewitt, under what universal libertarian principle is the state not allowed to defend its borders?
Right now, the citizenship of an anchor baby is not in question. It's laid down in the Constitution. An amendment will take time.
But that should not pose any objection to removing illegal immigrants. We'll cheerfully issue the anchor baby a passport (taking a DNA sample and fingerprints to make sure there are no substitutions), and send him home with his parents.
Man does not have a choice between nothing and the state
Vox, how so?
Hull?
Oof. That's rough. The Tomlinsons should come out here to West Texas.
Pip May 07, 2012 2:58 PM
Oof. That's rough. The Tomlinsons should come out here to West Texas.
Probably wouldn't work. My guess is that they don't speak Spanish.
Unbelievable!
The children in this story weren't anchor babies.-Spacebunny
Ummm.. Both their children were born in Bermuda. If that was the case in the USA they would be anchor babies. Is it safe for me to assume that Bermuda does not have such laws that makes a person a citizen if they are born there?
If that is true then yes you are right that they aren't anchor babies. If Bermuda do have their laws to set for people born there are automatically citizens then they would become anchor babies... no?
Hans Hoppe and the anti-state libertarians were wrong...
Hoppe, at least, argued that monarchy was better than democracy.
RACIS!
Is it safe for me to assume that Bermuda does not have such laws that makes a person a citizen if they are born there?
The usa is one of few nations that has anchor baby laws...most don't
I'm sure the unemployed British man was a threat to the vibrancy of the Bermudian community of 65,000 people.
Meanwhile Britain is getting flooded with Nigerians for God's sakes.
I must not feel white guilt.
White guilt is the mind-killer.
White guilt is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my white guilt.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the white guilt has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
Throw out that state and what do you have? Rule by the United Nations. That's precisely what I meant by free trade dictating global citizenship.
This seems like uncharacteristicly sloppy thinking. So the choice is between one gang of armed criminals or a global gang of armed criminals?
The usa is one of few nations that has anchor baby laws...most don't
Actually about 30 countries do - predominately a New World thing, almost exclusively in N. and S. America.
Actually about 30 countries do - predominately a New World thing, almost exclusively in N. and S. America.
30 isn't "most"
Gen.Kong said:
What you're failing to grasp here is that the scam worked exactly as those in charge planned. Your error is in the assumption that the regime wanted those that wished to be productive. The Kanuckistani regime is no different from those running of every other western country. They do not not want productive, civic-minded people who produce but more 'clients' for the ever-expanding state apparat. The non-productive welfare-sucking parasites are exactly the ones who they wanted to remain.
I reply:
You may be right, having dealt with government far too much for my liking I have found them to be borderline retarded ( excuse the language) in regards to what is best even for them and found them to be incredibly out of touch with economical reality ( any reality actually).
30 isn't "most"
Did I claim it was? No. But 30 isn't "few" either, which was the point.
Josh
This seems like uncharacteristicly sloppy thinking. So the choice is between one gang of armed criminals or a global gang of armed criminals?
How is that sloppy thinking? Yes, that is, as far as I can see, the choice. There are subsets of national government (limited, expansive, dictatorial), but the two superchoices are between a national government and a global government (insofar that the libertarian has a choice). Indeed, either one will be armed and either one will be naturally corrupt to some level.
Global doesn't necessarily start as a true world-wide government, but as an international cadre which does what international cadres do and eventually expands.
There is no nothing state. Name one.
> But 30 isn't "few" either, which was the point.
Well, that's a debatable matter. :) With respect to the total number of countries, it could be argued that it is.
But I'll grant the point. If it were less than 20, I'd argue that the word few was applicable, but at 30, it's probably pushing the envelope.
This seems like uncharacteristicly sloppy thinking. So the choice is between one gang of armed criminals or a global gang of armed criminals?
Pretty much. It would be more accruate to say the choice is between one gang of armed criminals nominally limited by their structural organization and a global gang of armed criminals who are limited by nothing.
"...the choice is between one gang of armed criminals nominally limited by their structural organization and a global gang of armed criminals who are limited by nothing..."
Well, if I have to choose between the Mafia and the Banksters, give me the Dons any day.
one gang of armed criminals nominally limited by their structural organization - VD
Exactly.
And mostly by an educated, moral and participatory people.
Funny how the Founders were able to point that out so long ago now.
I will also add PRINCIPLED {considering (R) voters and their Political Whores)
Vox: If they can do it why can't we?
That you would even have to ask this question points to the answer - which is directly related to the same reasoning which clearly accepts that only whites can be raciss. Moreover, it instantly marks you as an intolerant xenophobe - this is the answer to the question.
Hopefully enough people will tired of this BS and stop asking questions.
Winston Webb: Well, if I have to choose between the Mafia and the Banksters, give me the Dons any day.
Hear, hear. Tony Soprano for Presidente. Pauli Walnuts as minister for preservation of vice. Oval office moves to strip joint in North Jersey.
You guys who are worried about hard-working immigrants vs. lazy immigrants are missing the underlying issue. A citizen isn't a replaceable cog in a machine. Being a citizen should mean more than that. Working hard doesn't mean you should be here. That isn't and never was a requirement for citizenship.
Vox: Hans Hoppe and the anti-state libertarians were wrong. Man does not have a choice between nothing and the state, but a choice between the nation-state and the global State.
Can you back this up? Are there any books I can read to understand this point of view?
> If they can do it why can't we?
Sometimes I think we have reached the bottom of VD's maniacal idiocy. Then he goes and posts questions which I would hope are rhetorical devices, but quite clearly are not.
Bermuda is 20 square miles. Of that 20 square miles, five are inland or inter-coastal waterways. The approximate population of Bermuda including legal and illegal guests staying over 30 days is about 90,000. The entirety of the commonwealth is 181 islands, however, only about 20 have enough land mass to allow public travel, and only about a dozen are routinely considered inhabited. All legal residents are issues identity cards, and may be required to present them to authorities upon reasonable suspicion.
The US, on the hand, is 3.7 million square miles in size, and has 4000 miles of land borders with foreign nations. The population of over 300 million persons includes likely tens of millions of persons with no legal documentation, and another several million with some legal right to residency. Citizens are not issued identity cards, and do not need them to conduct government business.
At least the Navy Seals are still white
http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/02/24/navy-seeks-a-darker-shade-of-seals/
In matters of immigration policy (and all govt policy), point your fingers at the leadership. Then at the people who s-elects them... [1]
The reasonable question has been put whether it is better to have a good but imprudent ruler or a prudent but personally bad one. Moses here certainly calls for both: a good and a prudent ruler.
However, if both qualifications cannot be had, good is better than a good one who is not prudent, because a good one rules nothing but is only ruled—and only by the worst of people
Even though a prudent but personally bad ruler may harm the good people, he nevertheless rules the evil ones at the same time; and this is more necessary and proper for the world, since the world is nothing but a mass of evil people.
-- Martin Luther
In other words -- RULERS OF EVIL!
In other news, it would appear that Martin Weiss is the Austrian (at least he acts like one)...
According to the widely respected Shadow Government Statistics, the actual number of unemployed in the United States today is 22.3%.
That's nearly TRIPLE the official number cited most frequently by the government or the media.
But it is far more accurate than the government's, reflecting ALL those who have given up looking for work or have no choice but to accept low-paying part-time jobs.
And now, after some recent flickers of "strength," even the official stats are turning sour:
• In April, employers added a meager 115,000 non-farm jobs — worse than the already-disappointing March report.
• The percentage of workers participating in the labor force plunged to its worst level since 1981.
• Long-term unemployment is abominable. Among the jobless, a whopping 29.5% are now out of work for more than a year. That's 3.9 MILLION Americans in near-permanent limbo — more than the total population of Chicago and San Francisco combined!
SECOND, it's not just jobs. The ENTIRE U.S. recovery is rapidly fading. In the first quarter, it expanded by just 2.2% — a big drop-off from the fourth quarter of last year.
And this economic anemia is not just a temporary relapse; it's a chronic disease that's increasingly resistant to the biggest guns the economic witch doctors can throw at it.
He doesn't exactly say "animal spirits," but close enough...
--------------
[1] Of course, the overall problem is democracy to begin with. Look to Fred Reed and Aristotle for amplification.
• The percentage of workers participating in the labor force plunged to its worst level since 1981.
So, the solution here is Ronald Reagan? Certainly not Volcker or Greenspan. We are not exactly going to get this with Mittens. Except for nice hair, and probably the same affinity for Manly P. Hall. Dr. Paul would certainly give us the right prognosis. But then again, he doesn't have nice hair, but possibly some affinity for Hall...
"In the case of Bermuda, native Bermudans who dislike English people would simply exclude them from their property."
Good God, what planet do you libertarian nuts live on? Every time I start to admire Vox - I remember he's a libertarian.
Nature kills fools. The Bristish Isles will shortly become the Dead Isles. It will become another Turd World Hell Hole thanks to Blair and company. The British are dead.
The Anglo-Saxons in America are letting Negroes bed their daughters while their sons run off to Asia to marry.
They deserve to die.
James Dixon said ...
"True. The US is largely unique in that regard. Mind you, that's a uniqueness I'd like to continue, but..."
Currently 30 of 194 countries allow for Jus Soli (right of the soil) including most of the western world excluding Europe, Haiti, Cuba and French Guiana.
I live in South Korea and recently had a son. Mention to the Koreans that my son should be granted SK citizenship and they will most likely laugh in your face.
Citizenship should be about more than the place of birth.
"L'enfer, c'est les autres,"
They deserve to die. WWWheeler.
Deserves got nuthin' to do with it.
We All got it comin' , kid.
William Munny, "Unforgiven".
This seems like uncharacteristicly sloppy thinking. So the choice is between one gang of armed criminals or a global gang of armed criminals?
Josh
You left something out. With the global gang of armed criminals, the population is armed (hopefully).
In the other, limited gang of armed criminals state has a population that is still disarmed.
How long have you been thinking about this stuff?
Thats totally backwards. The armed population should be in the lower sentenc. Never mind.
If they can do it why can't we?
Do we have the balls for it?
What? Get rid of all the Brits? I hope so.
Pommy bastards.
Servitude as Freedom
Freedom from physical bondage is only bottom-level freedom. Freedom from bodily urges, such as substance dependancy, overeating and debauchery is higher level freedom; alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and lust incarcerate a person worse than a state pentitentiary.
Highest level freedom is freedom of the mind, when a person breaks the ball-and-chain servitude to conformity. One reaches the pinnacle of freedom when mobilizing his or her entire mental and physical resources in the service of The Creator. A servant of G-d is a master of body and soul.
The great benefit of being The King's servant is that one is free from serving anyone and everyone else. No feeling is as refreshing and exhilerating as real freedom, doing what you know and believe is right.
Get whitey! Ha!
and probably the same affinity for Manly P. Hall. Dr. Paul would certainly give us the right prognosis. But then again, he doesn't have nice hair, but possibly some affinity for Hall...
I see you working it.
As to the former, the Masonic Morman, no doubt. Check out the "White Horse Prophecy" thing.
Just do it! After all, it's looking more and more that TPTB were thinking along those lines a few weeks back when Mr. Breitbart made noises about having some unpleasant information about Hussein Hopenchange. Breitbart's gone, the coroner who handled his case is liquidated, and now a witness to Breitbart's collapse appears to have vanished into thin air.
Because "we" is not the government. And the government has a multitude of reasons not to.
Mangan has come up with an interesting addition the list of reasons the ruling oligarchs are so fond of open borders.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home