[GAaaAR]

Actually... California use to be part of mexico. How did it become part of america? O yea we beat their @$$ for it and invaded their land.(we also took texas) Doesn't sound too nice, but its the truth. Its just funny how we call them crossing borders to cali illegal immirgation. I know it was a really long time ago, but just tryin to play a little devil's advocate.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by BadBob

It can always be worse. At least the Mexicans aren't Islamic.

I think you may be beyond redemption

[NFS]

Originally Posted by CMD

Agreed. However, here in Southern California it is called racism. I'm not making this up.

CMD - I'm a bit worried about us agreeing

Anyway ... I was thinking about your post last night ... and about why things like that make me uncomfortable.

None of what follows is intended to annoy or insult - it's just my observations and I would be genuinely interested in your replies to my questions.

What troubles me is as follows:

1. The post is written as a first hand account, but I doubt you attended the meeting (you may correct me if I am wrong). The account also seems deliberately theatrical (the talk of a hushed silence at the end) and also tries to 'up' the credibility of those involed (some of americas finest minds). The theatrical presentation is on top of an apparently very theatrical speech 'the destruction of america', which is clearly a 'worst case' viewpoint.

It seems obvious to me that the 'author' of this account (whoever that is) is clearly not impartial and is deliberately presenting a version of the story to re-inforce his 'point'. I suspect it was original published in a 'anti illegal immigration' setting - website or journal. Perhaps you can explain where it comes from?

My question to you is - do you accept and understand this observation?

There was a recent scientific study that proved that people are far less discerning when analysing information which re-inforces their own beliefs and that they will actually 'filter out' information which does not support them.

This is done unconciously and I do genuinely wonder if you can accept the biased and theatrical nature of the account?

2. The basic premise - 'the destruction of america' - is a 'doomsday scenario'. It's a scary thought - what could be worse than the destruction of the country you love. However, it's also an extreme view. The reality has to be that america will not be 'destroyed'. It will still exist, but ultimately aspects of american society may change in ways that you and others find unpleasant.

None of the bi-lingual countries mentioned have actually been 'destroyed', they may have their own issues, but many of these are deep rooted and much more complicated than just the language issue. The UK is actually bi-lingual (well Wales anyway) and it's not the end of our society - it just makes the road signs more expensive.

So this argument is 'fear based' - the speakers and the author want to provoke a reaction by 'playing on' the fears of the audience. This is quite a manipulative tactic and is by nature 'reactionary' - by that I mean that these methods are only used when campaigning against (reacting to) something.

On this basis the entire strategem is a negative one. It says - be afraid - listen to us or very bad things will happen. It seems to be a very different situation, but the BNP in the UK (British National Party) who are without doubt a bunch of xenephobic racists, emply similar tactics.

For example - look at this article - they consider that the muslim community AS A WHOLE should apologise for the actions of the people arrested in the recent police action in the UK:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1079

Can you see that they are deliberately trying to 'blame' the muslim community as a whole for the attempted bombings and in doing so bolster up support for their position? This is a racist tactic (carefully disguised) simply because the vast majority of muslims are clearly just ordinary people who want to get on with their lives and would have no truck with terrorism, but the allegation is that this is somehow their fault JUST BECAUSE the are muslim. There have been posts on this forum which make the same point - one muslim is bad - so ALL muslims are bad - cleearly this is bollocks, but it plays to peoples insecurities. This is how racism works.

These people are VERY smart VERY dangerous and extremely manipulative - and they prey on fear.

Do you recognise that the article you posted plays on fear in a similar way? If so - does it trouble you or do you just see it as a legitimate way to get your argument accross?

I am not trying to disuade you of you beliefs - I am just trying to see if you can understand why they might trouble other people and for my own benefit try to understand if you can see the same propagandist tactics that I can.

[Robin_NL]

@ nfs

[tl_boy]

Originally Posted by aapriadi

dude seriously whats up with you and immigration problem? its like a fetish or somethin man

haha. why does he have a mexican flag in his sig?

[NFS]

Originally Posted by BadBob

I think the majority of Americans would agree with my statement and yes, I am beyond redemption.

Have you asked the majority of americans?

[NFS]

Originally Posted by BadBob

I sure did, you should see my phone bill.

Could they all speak english - because I think CMD is a bit worried about that?

Originally Posted by needforspeed

CMD - I'm a bit worried about us agreeing

Anyway ... I was thinking about your post last night ... and about why things like that make me uncomfortable.

None of what follows is intended to annoy or insult - it's just my observations and I would be genuinely interested in your replies to my questions.

What troubles me is as follows:

Originally Posted by needforspeed

1. The post is written as a first hand account, but I doubt you attended the meeting (you may correct me if I am wrong). The account also seems deliberately theatrical (the talk of a hushed silence at the end) and also tries to 'up' the credibility of those involved (some of americas finest minds). The theatrical presentation is on top of an apparently very theatrical speech 'the destruction of america', which is clearly a 'worst case' viewpoint.

Of course I was not present at the Immigration Overpopulation Conference in Washington, D.C. I think it's a stretch to call the speech "deliberately theatrical," when you were not there. Of course, you did state it "seems" which indicates to me your own "filter" may be at work. (See your reference to a "recent scientific study" below).

Originally Posted by needforspeed

It seems obvious to me that the 'author' of this account (whoever that is) is clearly not impartial and is deliberately presenting a version of the story to re-inforce his 'point'. I suspect it was original published in a 'anti illegal immigration' setting - website or journal. Perhaps you can explain where it comes from?

The speech is what it is, are you suggesting the author of the story changed the verbiage of the former Governor's speech? Is there something inherently wrong with enforcing or re-enforcing ones point? The speech, as far as I've been able to discover, was "Collected on the Internet in 2005." My reference is: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

Originally Posted by needforspeed

My question to you is - do you accept and understand this observation?

I understand your observation and contend, once again, your own personal filter is at work. (See your reference to a "recent scientific study" below).

Originally Posted by needforspeed

There was a recent scientific study that proved that people are far less discerning when analyzing information which re-enforces their own beliefs and that they will actually 'filter out' information which does not support them.

This is done unconciously and I do genuinely wonder if you can accept the biased and theatrical nature of the account?

Again, I doubt seriously the author changed former Governor Lamm's speech to make it more theatrical. The speech was read, after all, at an "Immigration Overpopulation Conference," held in our nation's capital last year. Do you actually believe that there would have been a conference in Washington, D.C., our Nation's capital, on "immigration overpopulation" if there were no immigration overpopulation problem?

Originally Posted by needforspeed

2. The basic premise - 'the destruction of america' - is a 'doomsday scenario'. It's a scary thought - what could be worse than the destruction of the country you love. However, it's also an extreme view. The reality has to be that america will not be 'destroyed'. It will still exist, but ultimately aspects of american society may change in ways that you and others find unpleasant.

The original title of the article was "A Frightening Analysis." I feel both titles are appropriate. However, it may be more accurate to name it: The Destruction of America as We Know It.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

None of the bi-lingual countries mentioned have actually been 'destroyed', they may have their own issues, but many of these are deep rooted and much more complicated than just the language issue. The UK is actually bi-lingual (well Wales anyway) and it's not the end of our society - it just makes the road signs more expensive.

Of course none have actually been "destroyed." However, they sure do have "issues" as you call them. Former Governor Lamm addressed six separate topics of which only one made reference to language.

I've uploaded a few articles for you to peruse regarding some of those "issues." I would urge you to at least open and scan them before you respond. And by the way, all you need to is Google "Cost of Illegal Immigration" in your browser and you'll find a wealth of information on what's happening here with regard to this topic. The costs extend WAY beyond road signs. Way.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

So this argument is 'fear based' - the speakers and the author want to provoke a reaction by 'playing on' the fears of the audience. This is quite a manipulative tactic and is by nature 'reactionary' - by that I mean that these methods are only used when campaigning against (reacting to) something.

The former Governor made a speech, it was not a debate. I agree there may be some implied "fear this," however the bulk of his speech was based on fact, not fiction.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

On this basis the entire strategem is a negative one. It says - be afraid - listen to us or very bad things will happen. It seems to be a very different situation, but the BNP in the UK (British National Party) who are without doubt a bunch of xenephobic racists, emply similar tactics.

I disagree strongly that it was a negative stratagem. The speech was based almost 100% fact. I resent your implication, too, that those of us that are tired of paying the cost of illegal immigration and want our borders controlled are "xenophobic racists." There are, of course, some that are racist. But to call every tax paying American citizen that opposes open borders a xenophobic racist is, to me, offensive. That, my friend, is offensive. Don't you think that using the phrase "xenophobic resist" is overly dramatic and extreme? I do.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

For example - look at this article - they consider that the muslim community AS A WHOLE should apologise for the actions of the people arrested in the recent police action in the UK:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1079

I read the article and I agree that the Muslim community should step up and denounce what these radical Muslim extremists are doing. Why wouldn't they? I find it appalling that they don't.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Can you see that they are deliberately trying to 'blame' the muslim community as a whole for the attempted bombings and in doing so bolster up support for their position? This is a racist tactic (carefully disguised) simply because the vast majority of muslims are clearly just ordinary people who want to get on with their lives and would have no truck with terrorism, but the allegation is that this is somehow their fault JUST BECAUSE the are muslim. There have been posts on this forum which make the same point - one muslim is bad - so ALL muslims are bad - cleearly this is bollocks, but it plays to peoples insecurities. This is how racism works.

No, I do not see they are trying to blame the "Muslim community as a whole." Not at all, not by any stretch. The world's Muslims should be speaking out to denounce this radical behavior. Absolutely. And to call someone "racist" because they believe an apology is due is nuts. No one that I know of believes that because one Muslim is bad they are all bad; this viewpoint is dramatic and extreme. I haven't read anything here that implies that.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

These people are VERY smart VERY dangerous and extremely manipulative - and they prey on fear.

Do you recognise that the article you posted plays on fear in a similar way? If so - does it trouble you or do you just see it as a legitimate way to get your argument accross?

No, simply because it was based on history. History ignored is history that will be repeated.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I am not trying to disuade you of you beliefs - I am just trying to see if you can understand why they might trouble other people and for my own benefit try to understand if you can see the same propagandist tactics that I can.

I believe that you believe what you believe. Our life paths are different. Your experiences and "truths" are different from mine. So sure, I can see how you might view the article on the former Governor's speech as propaganda. I can see that.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Could they all speak english - because I think CMD is a bit worried about that?

No, I'm not worried about that.

Originally Posted by aapriadi

only the government
. . .track down every illegal immigrant here in the states and send them back

Bingo!

Originally Posted by thedean786

paranoia - the weapon of the stupid and ignorant....

I'm not clear.

Are you implying that Americans that support controlling our national borders and immigration are somehow paranoid and ignorant?

I just want to make sure I don't missunderstand you.

[lux.sh]

I have a question, why would former governor of united states gave such speech about how to destroy america?

is he on coke? dope? mushrooms? acid?

Originally Posted by lux.sh

I have a question, why would former governor of united states gave such speech about how to destroy america?

is he on coke? dope? mushrooms? acid?

I have no first hand knowledge of the former Governor of the State of Colorado's mental state when he, yes, gave that speech. However, there is no known record that I can find that he is, or ever was, known to use illicit drugs. Here is a link that will supply you with futher information on the speech: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

Originally Posted by aapriadi

dude seriously whats up with you and immigration problem? its like a fetish or somethin man

My "immigration problem?"

I don't have an immigration problem.

What I do have is an ILLEGAL immigration problem.

You know, those people who sneak into our country at night, under cover of darkness, or throught tunnels, etc.

These people are overwhelming our schools, hospitals and jails.

Anyway, the key word you seem to overlook, as many others do, is ILLEGAL.

Let me help you just in case I still have not been clear enough.

From: Dictionary.com

il-le-gal  [i-lee-guhl]

–adjective

1. forbidden by law or statute.

2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

–noun

3. Informal. ILLEGAL ALIEN.


[Origin: 1620–30; < ML illēgālis. See il-2, LEGAL]

—Related forms
il-le-gal-ly, adverb


—Synonyms 1. unlawful; illegitimate; illicit; unlicensed. ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, ILLEGITIMATE, ILLICIT, CRIMINAL can all describe actions not in accord with law. ILLEGAL refers most specifically to violations of statutes or, in organized athletics, codified rules: an illegal seizure of property; an illegal block (in football). Unlawful means not sanctioned by or according to law: an unlawful claim to the inheritance; to take unlawful advantage of the trading situation. ILLEGITIMATE means lacking legal or traditional right or rights: an illegitimate child; illegitimate use of privileged knowledge. ILLICIT which originally meant simply “not permitted,” now most often applies to matters regulated by law with specific emphasis on the way things are carried out: illicit conversion of property; an illicit attempt to control the market. CRIMINAL most often refers to violation of the statutes of penal as opposed to civil law. All felonies are criminal as are all crimes sometimes punishable by death such as murder, arson, and kidnapping: a criminal act.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary


adj.
Prohibited by law.
Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.

n.
An illegal immigrant.

il·legal·ly adv.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by CMD

I resent your implication, too, that those of us that are tired of paying the cost of illegal immigration and want our borders controlled are "xenophobic racists." There are, of course, some that are racist. But to call every tax paying American citizen that opposes open borders a xenophobic racist is, to me, offensive. That, my friend, is offensive. Don't you think that using the phrase "xenophobic resist" is overly dramatic and extreme? I do.

Read what I wrote again .. I called the BNP 'xenophobic racists' not you or any other american.

I was interested in what you thought of their (the BNP) site and in truth I am somewhat dissapointed that you cannot see their hidden objectives (they are without doubt racist wankers).

They call for Muslims to denounce the terrorists as if they are somehow responsible for them. No one called for the catholics to denounce terrorism in the wake of the IRA. So why is it different here?

My own 'filter' will certainly apply in terms of the content of your post, but you have to remember that I am not involved in the immigration issue. My only link to it is this forum and I have no 'axe to grind'. I just noticed, what I noticed in the text you posted and wondered if you could see it too.

My synopsis is that you do recognise the manipulative nature of the post, but that you forgive it because it accords with your own beliefs.