When Immigration Is a Crime

[Michael]

When Immigration Is a Crime

Over the past few years, European Union law and national laws, particularly in France and Italy, have established repressive and utilitarian immigration policies that have equated European cooperation with legal regression. What is left of the right to migrate once held sacred by theologians and jurists alike?

The development of the right to migrate is generally considered to date back to the end of the 16th Century, when Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria saw it as stemming from the cosmopolitan idea of universal fraternity between peoples. [2] To be sure, as the philosopher of law Luigi Ferrajoli recently pointed out, the assertion of this right was clearly taken advantage of by the Europeans as justification for exploiting the lands and peoples of the New World. [3] Historically asymmetrical, this ius migrandi nevertheless remained a milestone of classical liberal thought. Kant included in his program for a Perpetual Peace not only the right to emigrate but also the right to immigrate, associating the latter with the principle of universal hospitality [4] – and the jus migrandi was included in the main national and international legal texts: first in Article 4 of the 1793 French Constitutional Act (“The following are admitted to exercise the rights of French citizenship: every man born and domiciled in France, fully twenty-one years of age; every foreigner, fully twenty-one years of age, who, domiciled in France for one year and lives there by his labour, or acquires property, or marries a French woman, or adopts a child, or supports an elderly person; finally, every foreigner who is considered by the legislative body to be deserving of being treated humanely”) [5], to Article 13, paragraph 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”), then in several national constitutions. [6]


Article (http://www.booksandideas.net/When-Immigration-Is-a-Crime.html?lang=fr)

This is an excellent article about the increasing trend to criminalize the immigration process.

This trend already seems well established in the USA - now it seems that western Europe is playing the same game.

[Donkey]

*sigh*

It's foolish, dangerous, and leads to Mercedes Benz execs getting arrested in Alabama.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Yes, here there are anti-immigrant sentiments too.

So much so, that there is a support for all initiatives to secure the border and make it harder to get in.

Like, right now there is a initiative pushed by the Orthodox Church on behalf of the Cossack leadership. They want the government to give funds to Cossack clans to settle along the borders, just like in the Tsarist era, and patrol and protect those borders, augumenting the regular border troops.

The Cossacks are preapred to settle families in communes in the border zones and, from them, form and deploy armed units to patrol their assigned areas. It is hard to argue they do not have the strengh to do this
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/300186_10150384372601558_721246557_10336499_129937 9000_n.jpghttp://www.scc-nsk.ru/images/projects/kazaki/assets/images/pks.jpghttp://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/32494_434589161557_721246557_6049731_217074_n.jpgh ttp://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/37392_443918241557_721246557_6321996_8225432_n.jpg http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/225358_10150240397251558_721246557_9026207_474316_ n.jpghttp://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/301536_10150384393366558_721246557_10336581_701545 334_n.jpghttp://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/185107_10150324067276558_721246557_9764584_915471_ n.jpghttp://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/320649_10150457780546558_721246557_10753335_147981 3875_n.jpghttp://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/32494_434589596557_721246557_6049751_3225482_n.jpg http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/24332_101488206561184_100001000150477_10260_481017 7_n.jpg
They definately, today, have the firepower to do whatever they want. Remember I wrote about the Orthodox Church Militia? Well, the Cossacks are the Orthodox Church Militia. They supply 95% of its membership and, probably, 100% of its weapons.

Yet, they also have no knowledge of the modern legal system, spit on "human rights" unless those rights belong to their people, and live by a 17th century Code of Conduct, where there are three main punishments for crime depending on seriousness: banishment, flogging/whipping, and death.

This is who the conservatives here want to guard our borders and deal with prospective immigrants :rolleyes: You think those Algerians in France have it bad? Wait until this comes through...

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Do people think that immigration should be governed by the same principles as...

-person a) walking freely into person b)'s garden?

-person a) walking freely into person b)'s house?

[MeMyselfAndI]

Do people think that immigration should be governed by the same principles as...

-person a) walking freely into person b)'s garden?

-person a) walking freely into person b)'s house?

Your house belongs to you, it is private property. You have a right not to let other people into your private property. You cannot claim all of your country's land as your private property.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Your house belongs to you, it is private property. You have a right not to let other people into your private property. You cannot claim all of your country's land as your private property.
So who do people buy their land/plot from?

[The Drunk Guy]

So who do people buy their land/plot from?
Buy? No, no, no....we kill the natives and take it. ;)

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Buy? No, no, no....we kill the natives and take it. ;)
And then sell it to people who sunbathe in it, enjoying the solitude of their garden where they can talk about how immigration should be free for everyone.

[The Drunk Guy]

And then sell it to people who sunbathe in it, enjoying the solitude of their garden where they can talk about how immigration should be free for everyone.
More like sell them a loan to buy it and then raise their interest rates to something they can't afford to pay and then evict them. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

More like sell them a loan to buy it and then raise their interest rates to something they can't afford to pay and then evict them. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Who needs a garden - I don't even have a balcony. I have two garden chairs which I take outside and sit in front of the block when the weather's nice. I drink tea, read and if I'm extra lucky, chat with the person I'm with. I meet the neighbours and we chat, which I wouldn't do if I was in a garden, or on a balcony.

There is a park, and a green river bank where I run by, and also see people. I don't mind sharing the ground I tread on with other people - that's the curious thing about me. And it does my head in when people talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. They are FAR worse than the people who are honest about their NIMBY/NIMC (not-in-my-country) attitude.

[Donkey]

Do people think that immigration should be governed by the same principles as...

-person a) walking freely into person b)'s garden?

-person a) walking freely into person b)'s house?

Invalid comparison. Both of those constitute privately held property (according to western notions of the idea). That is not relevant to immigration policy.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Invalid comparison. Both of those constitute privately held property (according to western notions of the idea). That is not relevant to immigration policy.

Private property that people have paid for because they can afford it - another example of armchair socialism from the Donx
(In my humble opinion ;) )

[Donkey]

Rubbish - another example of armchair socialism from the Donx
(In my humble opinion ;) )

With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?

And, so you know, there's nothing armchair about my opinions on immigration policy. I've been in the thick of that fight.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?

And, so you know, there's nothing armchair about my opinions on immigration policy. I've been in the thick of that fight.
More vagueness. I thought you were born in the US.
Armchair refers to one who preaches but doesn't practise.
Why should the American tax-payer see its borders open to everyone, when a mortgage-payer should not be obliged to see their garden gates open to everyone?

[Non Sequitur]

Why should the American tax-payer see its borders open to everyone, when a mortgage-payer should not be obliged to see their garden gates open to everyone?

Because countries and gardens are entirely different subjects.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Because countries and gardens are entirely different subjects.

Why do people own a garden - because they can afford that luxury, obviously. Then they can sit there in peace and quiet, without irritating street urchins disturbing them, while they are pious about rednecks' attitude to immigation.

[Non Sequitur]

Why do people own a garden - because they can afford that luxury, obviously. Then they can sit there in peace and quiet, without irritating street urchins disturbing them, while they are pious about rednecks' attitude to immigation.

I'm not understanding what you are trying to get at? :confused:

[Donkey]

More vagueness. I thought you were born in the US.
I was.

Armchair refers to one who preaches but doesn't practise.
I know what it means. I've been very involved in the immigration fight.


Why should the American tax-payer see its borders open to everyone, when a mortgage-payer should not be obliged to see their garden gates open to everyone?

Dissimilar concepts. A state (country) is not a property.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

I was.

I know what it means. I've been very involved in the immigration fight.


What have you done that's helped immigrants? Why do I think you'll not provide me with an example?


Dissimilar concepts. A state (country) is not a property.[/

.

If a state is not a property, then a garden can't be either, since there would be no one to buy the garden from.

They have the same property statuses, but NIMBYs would have you think otherwise. At least NIMBY's who are also NIMC's have a certain degree of consistency.

[Donkey]

What have you done that's helped immigrants? Why do I think you'll not provide me with an example?
I have worked professionally and voluntarily on immigration advocacy, legislation, lobbying and activism. Also have worked in assimilation, empowerment and education of (mostly Hispanic) immigrants.

I currently work for an organization that, among other things, is a national advocate for immigrant rights and immigration reform.

If a state is not a property, then a garden can't be either, since there would be no one to buy the garden from.
So who does my house belong to? Me or the state?

I actually started a thread on the genesis of property. Property is a very problematic concept when you get down into its origins. You might find that thread interesting. Suffice to say, however, the concept of property has little relevance to the immigration question. In Western states, most property is not held by the state.


They have the same property statuses, but NIMBYs would have you think otherwise. At least NIMBY's who are also NIMC's have a certain degree of consistency.

By and large the "back yard" that is usually referred to in the NIMBY sense of the word is specifically not the property of the NIMBYist. Solely based on how it is used. Windmills? Yay! But not in my back yard! My Back Yard referring to Cape Cod of course. Not my property.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Donkey, so why is a garden-owner entitled to keep people out of his/her garden, but the state who sold him the garden not entitled to keep people out of its land?

[Donkey]

Donkey, so why is a garden-owner entitled to keep people out of his/her garden, but the state who sold him the garden not entitled to keep people out of its land?

The state sells you a garden? Sometimes, but usually after buying it from another private entity.

But anyway, the state can regulate those who enter and those who don't. But that's not really the subject of the thread. The subject of the thread is the dangerous and disappointing trend toward militarization and criminalization of the immigration question.

To do away with state regulation of borders, one would have to do away with the state (yay!). I'm merely pointing out that the personal property comparison is not an appropriate one.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

The state sells you a garden? Sometimes, but usually after buying it from another private entity.

But anyway, the state can regulate those who enter and those who don't. But that's not really the subject of the thread. The subject of the thread is the dangerous and disappointing trend toward militarization and criminalization of the immigration question.

To do away with state regulation of borders, one would have to do away with the state (yay!). I'm merely pointing out that the personal property comparison is not an appropriate one.
You may buy a property from another private entity, but eventually it will have been bought by the state.

So if the state doesn't own its land, neither does a garden owner.

You're wrong about this not being the subject of the thread - read the initial posting, which (according to Michael) is the description of the subject of the thread.

[Donkey]

You may buy a property from another private entity, but eventually it will have been bought by the state.
The concept of property predates the concept of the state.


So if the state doesn't own its land, neither does a garden owner. Interesting point. ;)



You're wrong about this not being the subject of the thread - read the initial posting, which (according to Michael) is the description of the subject of the thread.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, so I'm going to stop bothering.

[The Drunk Guy]

You may buy a property from another private entity, but eventually it will have been bought by the state.

So if the state doesn't own its land, neither does a garden owner.

You're wrong about this not being the subject of the thread - read the initial posting, which (according to Michael) is the description of the subject of the thread.

States protect unused land. Sure, states own some land, but states purchased the rights to the land....not the land itself. When America purchased the rights to the Louisiana territory from France, it orchestrated land grants to disperse the land among its eager population. Some land was set aside for parks which belong to the state. Otherwise, the only property owned by the state are roadways and property purchased from individuals (such as state capitols and executive offices.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Why do people own a garden - because they can afford that luxury, obviously. Then they can sit there in peace and quiet, without irritating street urchins disturbing them, while they are pious about rednecks' attitude to immigation.

Well, Nick, maybe that is how you live. I own a apartment, and a dacha with a garden, but I certainly do not own it just to sit there alone, like a hermit. I invite my relatives, my friends, my neighbors, and they invite me to their homes and dachas in return.

Immigrants are exactly that, guests, but on a more global level. Illegal immigrants are uninvited guests, but while, yes, you would likely make most uninvited leave your property; some you would allow to stay. If a person in desperate need of food or drink or medical help arrives on your doorstep, most decent people would oblige him. That is what refugees are.

[MeMyselfAndI]

To be frank, if we are comparing the world to a home; ironically, I would like to see the Earth be more like a communal apartment. Sure, I did not enjoy living in one lol But, globally, it would be the fairest system: everybody has own room (country), but the utilities (natural resources) are all common/shared.

[Michael]

If a state is not a property, then a garden can't be either, since there would be no one to buy the garden from.

This is nonsense. A state is not property and cannot be considered property unless you have an absolute monarch and even then the concept is sketchy as even absolute monarchs (Louis XIV for example) were forced to acknowledge that he didn't actually own everything in the state, even though, he himself, was the the state.

[Michael]

To be frank, if we are comparing the world to a home; ironically, I would like to see the Earth be more like a communal apartment. Sure, I did not enjoy living in one lol But, globally, it would be the fairest system: everybody has own room (country), but the utilities (natural resources) are all common/shared.

I think that's a pretty good analogy.

[Americano]

States protect unused land. Sure, states own some land, but states purchased the rights to the land....not the land itself. When America purchased the rights to the Louisiana territory from France, it orchestrated land grants to disperse the land among its eager population. Some land was set aside for parks which belong to the state. Otherwise, the only property owned by the state are roadways and property purchased from individuals (such as state capitols and executive offices.

Regarding state land ownership, the Federal government owns most of the 11 Western states. Some percentages of federal land ownership:


Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6

Source (http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343) (includes map showing Federal land ownership in all states)

That doesn't include state owned land, which in the Western states is also significant due to state parks, wild lands and rivers.

For decades the federal government paid states compensation for lost tax revenue on those lands. This is the last year of those payments, reduced over the past five years. Many rural counties in my state (Oregon) are facing insolvency with the loss of those payments.

[The Drunk Guy]

Regarding state land ownership, the Federal government owns most of the 11 Western states. Some percentages of federal land ownership:


Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6

Source (http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343) (includes map showing Federal land ownership in all states)

That doesn't include state owned land, which in the Western states is also significant due to state parks, wild lands and rivers.

For decades the federal government paid states compensation for lost tax revenue on those lands. This is the last year of those payments, reduced over the past five years. Many rural counties in my state (Oregon) are facing insolvency with the loss of those payments.Left-overs claimed by the state. How much of that is federal park land? (Just curious.)

[Americano]

Left-overs claimed by the state. How much of that is federal park land? (Just curious.)

I don't know. The Federal Parks Department manages 84.4 million acres but that's not all public access parks. There are several classifications with varied access and usage designations.

[The Drunk Guy]

I don't know. The Federal Parks Department manages 84.4 million acres but that's not all public access parks. There are several classifications with varied access and usage designations.
And then there's 193 million acres in under the National Forest Service. Land free to explore so long as you don't touch anything, leave anything, or sneeze too hard.

[Americano]

And then there's 193 million acres in under the National Forest Service. Land free to explore so long as you don't touch anything, leave anything, or sneeze too hard.

Unless you're a contract logging company, have a minerals claim, approved hunting guide, resort operator and a multitude of other legal arrangements. Regular citizens without adequate supervision start forest fires, dump trash, get lost and generally defile anyplace they're allowed to 'vacation'.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

This is nonsense. A state is not property and cannot be considered property unless you have an absolute monarch and even then the concept is sketchy as even absolute monarchs (Louis XIV for example) were forced to acknowledge that he didn't actually own everything in the state, even though, he himself, was the the state.

I haven't said a state is a property - I've said a state is a property (the owners being the citizens) if a garden is a property.

There is a gaping hole in your posting, since you only back up your rejection of what I say, by talking about a state, and don't say a thing about a garden.

[Donkey]

Unless you're a contract logging company, have a minerals claim, approved hunting guide, resort operator and a multitude of other legal arrangements. Regular citizens without adequate supervision start forest fires, dump trash, get lost and generally defile anyplace they're allowed to 'vacation'.

Your obvious disdain for people in lower income brackets borders on... ah forget it.

Miners and loggers never defile anywhere they go. :rolleyes: Fuckin' please.

[Donkey]

I haven't said a state is a property - I've said a state is a property (the owners being the citizens) if a garden is a property.

There is a gaping hole in your posting, since you only back up your rejection of what I say, by talking about a state, and don't say a thing about a garden.

Because it's not relevant to the discussion of immigration.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Because it's not relevant to the discussion of immigration.
I said that if a garden was a property, then a state must be a property, too. Michael appeared to have missed the vital if-clause, and I helpfully drew his attention to it.

[Donkey]

I said that if a garden was a property, then a state must be a property, too. Michael appeared to have missed the vital if-clause, and I helpfully drew his attention to it.

Just because you put an "if" and a "then" in your sentence doesn't mean it automatically becomes logical.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Just because you put an "if" and a "then" in your sentence doesn't mean it automatically becomes logical.
I agree.

[The Drunk Guy]

Your obvious disdain for people in lower income brackets borders on... ah forget it.

Miners and loggers never defile anywhere they go. :rolleyes: Fuckin' please.

Well, the difference is that the companies can be held accountable.

[Donkey]

Well, the difference is that the companies can be held accountable.

:rofl:

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Well, Nick, maybe that is how you live. I own a apartment, and a dacha with a garden, but I certainly do not own it just to sit there alone, like a hermit. I invite my relatives, my friends, my neighbors, and they invite me to their homes and dachas in return.

Immigrants are exactly that, guests, but on a more global level. Illegal immigrants are uninvited guests, but while, yes, you would likely make most uninvited leave your property; some you would allow to stay. If a person in desperate need of food or drink or medical help arrives on your doorstep, most decent people would oblige him. That is what refugees are.
I am not talking about people in despearate need.

I am discussing the idea that Michael brought up in the first posting - that anyone should be able to immigrate to any country whenever they want to.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Okay, I have a question.

Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are bound together by the Customs Union.

According to this, there is no border control between the three countries, cargo and people can travel freely around the Union, and, I assume, citizens of Russia, Kazakhstan, or Belarus can resettle in any of the three if they so choose.

Now, my question, and this is the ambiguity in the law. Can a citizen of some forth country travel freely from one Union country to the next? Example that I know of: a family from Kyrgzystan who illegally sneaked into Kazakhstan after the recent turmoil there, and then took advantage of the absense of border control to get into Russia.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Okay, I have a question.

Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are bound together by the Customs Union.

According to this, there is no border control between the three countries, cargo and people can travel freely around the Union, and, I assume, citizens of Russia, Kazakhstan, or Belarus can resettle in any of the three if they so choose.

Now, my question, and this is the ambiguity in the law. Can a citizen of some forth country travel freely from one Union country to the next? Example that I know of: a family from Kyrgzystan who illegally sneaked into Kazakhstan after the recent turmoil there, and then took advantage of the absense of border control to get into Russia.
I suppose once they've committed the action of entering a country without official approval, they will probably have time to travel around a bit in that country before being apprehended by the authorities - I suppose it's the same with Customs Unions, as with countries.

By the way, MeMyselfandI, what do you think about the idea described by Michael in the first posting that anybody should be allowed to migrate to any country at any time, regardless of circumstances?

I seem to remember you expressing disdain for EU countries' immigration policy, which you seem to think is too liberal.

[MeMyselfAndI]

By the way, MeMyselfandI, what do you think about the idea described by Michael in the first posting that anybody should be allowed to migrate to any country at any time, regardless of circumstances?

I seem to expressing concern about EU countries' immigration policy, which you seem to think is too liberal.

To tell you honestly... I think the EU system is both, too liberal in one way, and too hard in another. Maybe it depends on the particular region of the EU, but...

1.) People from Africa, Arabia/Middle East, and Turkey are allowed to massively migrate to Europe and settle there and live in their own segregated zones, and not integrate into the local culture. Okay, well, that is fine, if that is how the locals and them want it, okay.

but then

2.) Roma people, who are native to Europe (well, not entirely, they are originally from India, but they've been in Europe for something like 1,000 years now :shrug:) are, nonetheless, treated not only worse then other native Europeans, but worse then even illegal immigrants from Morocco or Libya. Their rights are not respected. In France, they can be thrown out of their homes and deported instantly. Italy too. In Romania and Bulgaria they are beaten up in the streets. In Czechia, they are violently attacked too. In Hungary, they are shot at, their homes are firebombed. Thsi is persecution. This is same as what my people once experienced from the Orthodox Church. Persecution, ethnic cleansing. In 21st century Europe.

So, do not look down on Russia, Nick. Sure, Russia is not a nice place. But Europe is no better. Europe is persecuting an entire nation of people too.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

To tell you honestly... I think the EU system is both, too liberal in one way, and too hard in another. Maybe it depends on the particular region of the EU, but...

1.) People from Africa, Arabia/Middle East, and Turkey are allowed to massively migrate to Europe and settle there and live in their own segregated zones, and not integrate into the local culture. Okay, well, that is fine, if that is how the locals and them want it, okay.

but then

2.) Roma people, who are native to Europe (well, not entirely, they are originally from India, but they've been in Europe for something like 1,000 years now :shrug:) are, nonetheless, treated not only worse then other native Europeans, but worse then even illegal immigrants from Morocco or Libya. Their rights are not respected. In France, they can be thrown out of their homes and deported instantly. Italy too. In Romania and Bulgaria they are beaten up in the streets. In Czechia, they are violently attacked too. In Hungary, they are shot at, their homes are firebombed. Thsi is persecution. This is same as what my people once experienced from the Orthodox Church. Persecution, ethnic cleansing. In 21st century Europe.

So, do not look down on Russia, Nick. Sure, Russia is not a nice place. But Europe is no better. Europe is persecuting an entire nation of people too.

I know what you mean about Roma people's being in Europe for a long time, but Slavic, Latin and Germanic Europeans often consider that Roma people do not work, and prefer to live off state benefits - whether this is true or not, I don't know.

It seems that you don't agree with the idea described by Michael in the first posting, that everyone should be allowed to migrate wherever they like, whenever they like. IS that correct?

[MeMyselfAndI]

I know what you mean about Roma people's being in Europe for a long time, but Slavic, Latin and Germanic Europeans often consider that Roma people do not work, and prefer to live off state benefits - whether this is true or not, I don't know.

Then European Roma must be very different from Russian Roma. Ours are among the most hardworking people in the country. Not all their ventures are legal, of course :lol: But, that is fine here. In Russia, you cannot get rich without getting dirty ;) But, they work like horses, that is the truth. And also lie and cheat in cards very well too :D

It seems that you don't agree with the idea described by Michael in the first posting, that everyone should be allowed to migrate wherever they like, whenever they like. IS that correct?

I think that migration should be based on a mutual respect.

See, when I read about skinheads in Moscow beating some Kyrgyz, it fills my heart with rage. Because these are good people. these are people who come to this country, and they do not steal, or sell narcotics, or whatever. They work, in worst jobs, for least pay, but they work, and send money back home, to their families. They learn Russian language, if did not know it so well before. They make an effort. So, I agree with my wife, and help protect them any way I can.

But, when I see those Algerians rioting in France, or Somalians in Sweden... When I see the murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netehrlands... Or the attacks against that Danish cartoonist... Or those "British" Muslims holding signs "Death to British Soldiers"... These are not immigrants. These are invaders. Scum. They did not come there to work, to make an honest living. They came to rob, to attack, to murder. They will not assimilate into the local culture, because they hate that culture. Those people I do not want in my country, and would fight them in the streets if they ever tried to come here.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Then European Roma must be very different from Russian Roma. Ours are among the most hardworking people in the country. Not all their ventures are legal, of course :lol: But, that is fine here. In Russia, you cannot get rich without getting dirty ;) But, they work like horses, that is the truth. And also lie and cheat in cards very well too :D
.

In Poland, it cannot be denied that many Roma people beg for money on the streets. So, I must confess to being a bit surprised at what you say. But I believe you.

[Greendruid]

2.) Roma people, who are native to Europe (well, not entirely, they are originally from India, but they've been in Europe for something like 1,000 years now :shrug:) are, nonetheless, treated not only worse then other native Europeans, but worse then even illegal immigrants from Morocco or Libya. Their rights are not respected. In France, they can be thrown out of their homes and deported instantly. Italy too. In Romania and Bulgaria they are beaten up in the streets. In Czechia, they are violently attacked too. In Hungary, they are shot at, their homes are firebombed. Thsi is persecution. This is same as what my people once experienced from the Orthodox Church. Persecution, ethnic cleansing. In 21st century Europe

Your first statement is actually more correct. A recent article in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology traced the genetic components of Roma populations in Hungary and I believe Slovenia and found that they are mostly European with a few Indian subcontinent genetic markers. However, you could make the same claims of many other European groups due to the migratorial patterns of people. The Diaspora Jews are a good example. So are the Spanish who intermarried with the Moors. The Irish who are mostly Celts and admixture with invading Vikings. The list goes on and on. People have always done one thing well - move around the planet.

[Americano]

Your obvious disdain for people in lower income brackets borders on... ah forget it.

Have you ever seen what's left after a holiday weekend at a public park or campground? Encouraging those vacationers to defile pristine wilderness seems idiotic. It's not just lower income people, some of those RVs cost in the million dollar range.

Miners and loggers never defile anywhere they go. :rolleyes: Fuckin' please.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with logging, mining and concession regulations on public lands.

[pramjockey]

And then there's 193 million acres in under the National Forest Service. Land free to explore so long as you don't touch anything, leave anything, or sneeze too hard.

:confused:

We use Forest Service land all the time. We 4-wheel in it, camp in it (don't forget your chain saw to collect firewood), and have friends that hunt in it.

I think I even sneezed once or twice.

[The Drunk Guy]

:confused:

We use Forest Service land all the time. We 4-wheel in it, camp in it (don't forget your chain saw to collect firewood), and have friends that hunt in it.

I think I even sneezed once or twice.
In the designated recreation areas, sure.

My home county is something like 65% Daniel Boone National Forest and 15% Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area. The county is dotted with recreation areas and parks. Beautiful hiking trails, including a stretch of the Sheltowee Trace, zig-zag across the county. We use the hell out of it.

But if they catch you off the beaten path, expect a full cavity search. As I said, you're free to walk it and even pitch a tent in the middle of the forest (with proper permit), but if you tried to pick some flowers or snag a souvenir stone, expect fines. And four-wheelers are taken into custody if they're caught in the forest, which I support 100%. They're destructive and dangerous and should be kept on private land.

As for hunting, that's a big no-no, too. They used to have a lottery to allow deer hunters access to a game reserve they've designated, but they had to cut that out when they caught the hunters all killing as many as they could.

I don't begrudge the Parks or Forest services....I've spent many, many days in their territory. But I'm not crazy about the permits and passes and all that. For those, though, I have to blame a) dumbasses that cause trouble and b) poor budgetary priorities in Washington.

As a child, my family would spend weeks at a time camping at the rustic camping sites the Forest Service built back home. I remember that we would always be on watch for the Forest Ranger because you never knew when they'd find an excuse to pick someone up. Back then, firearms weren't allowed and, as any reasonable human would, Dad always brought his pistol. So we always played the perfect, quiet family as the ranger circled the camp sites. You can take a gun now that they've reintroduced the black bears into the area, but now you always have to have your papers with you.

[pramjockey]

In the designated recreation areas, sure.

My home county is something like 65% Daniel Boone National Forest and 15% Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area. The county is dotted with recreation areas and parks. Beautiful hiking trails, including a stretch of the Sheltowee Trace, zig-zag across the county. We use the hell out of it.

But if they catch you off the beaten path, expect a full cavity search. As I said, you're free to walk it and even pitch a tent in the middle of the forest (with proper permit), but if you tried to pick some flowers or snag a souvenir stone, expect fines. And four-wheelers are taken into custody if they're caught in the forest, which I support 100%. They're destructive and dangerous and should be kept on private land.

As for hunting, that's a big no-no, too. They used to have a lottery to allow deer hunters access to a game reserve they've designated, but they had to cut that out when they caught the hunters all killing as many as they could.

I don't begrudge the Parks or Forest services....I've spent many, many days in their territory. But I'm not crazy about the permits and passes and all that. For those, though, I have to blame a) dumbasses that cause trouble and b) poor budgetary priorities in Washington.

As a child, my family would spend weeks at a time camping at the rustic camping sites the Forest Service built back home. I remember that we would always be on watch for the Forest Ranger because you never knew when they'd find an excuse to pick someone up. Back then, firearms weren't allowed and, as any reasonable human would, Dad always brought his pistol. So we always played the perfect, quiet family as the ranger circled the camp sites. You can take a gun now that they've reintroduced the black bears into the area, but now you always have to have your papers with you.

Huh. They do things very differently here.

Of course, taking a vehicle off the trail is not acceptable, and they do crack down on that. But permits for camping? Maybe in Rocky Mountain National Park. But National Forest land is pretty open, especially to foot traffic, and the rangers are friendly.

Hell, I've had one let me go with a campfire during a fire ban, while shooting in an arguable area, with questionable offroad access. He actually encouraged us to burn more of the undergrowth, even though the fire ban was clearly in effect.

:shrug:

[Americano]

Huh. They do things very differently here.

Of course, taking a vehicle off the trail is not acceptable, and they do crack down on that. But permits for camping? Maybe in Rocky Mountain National Park. But National Forest land is pretty open, especially to foot traffic, and the rangers are friendly.

Hell, I've had one let me go with a campfire during a fire ban, while shooting in an arguable area, with questionable offroad access. He actually encouraged us to burn more of the undergrowth, even though the fire ban was clearly in effect.

:shrug:

During hunting season in Idaho, Washington and Wyoming we went to the end of the road in National Forests and then used horses brought on trailers to reach our desired destinations. The rangers welcomed us and after checking our permits and licenses, gave us their current information on how the game was herding up.

They never cruised our camps because they remained at the end of the road to control the masses of city hunters who camped near the road. Whiskey City and bad news was what the rangers called those hunters.

[pramjockey]

During hunting season in Idaho, Washington and Wyoming we went to the end of the road in National Forests and then used horses brought on trailers to reach our desired destinations. The rangers welcomed us and after checking our permits and licenses, gave us their current information on how the game was herding up.

They never cruised our camps because they remained at the end of the road to control the masses of city hunters who camped near the road. Whiskey City and bad news was what the rangers called those hunters.

Yeah, I can totally see that happening. They're there to manage the people who are going to hurt someone or someone else. Those of us who are actually behaving responsibly (not drinking and shooting, etc.) are not part of their headaches for the day.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Yeah, I can totally see that happening. They're there to manage the people who are going to hurt someone or someone else. Those of us who are actually behaving responsibly (not drinking and shooting, etc.) are not part of their headaches for the day.

Egers, "forest keepers", Russian version of your rangers, mostly spend their time catching people smoking in the firest.
http://www.sniper.ru/photos/img/37.jpg
Smoking in forests is illegal here, after all the huge fires we have had...

It is a hard job
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8837/pl130309eger.jpg
Egers actually live in their forests, in shacks.

Native egers in the mountains of Altai
http://www.555hf.tv/images/video/441.jpg

In the 90s, Yeltsin's governance damaged this profession. 40,000 egers lost their jobs around the country. Putin is bringing it back now. He sees that it is one way to prevent human-caused forest fires.