I was banned recently, simply for voicing my opinion that immigration is oppression. (And it really is -- nobody has the right to tell me I can't live with my family overseas or anywhere.)

I would now like to throw in my opinion that this site's censorship and refusal to hear very real criticisms is extremely frightening. It indicates complicity in the crime. It is one thing to be forced to submit to these evil rules, and have this forum to discuss ways to mitigate the problem. It is quite another to endorse them -- as they are blatant violence and oppression against innocent people.

Maybe you need to moderate the voracity of your claims, why not try a lower key discussion?

I can pretty much guarantee that moaning about Administrators on the majority of web sites won't get you a good reception.
Your last thread got deleted, be a bit smarter and we can exchange views, if not, I guess this thread will get deleted as well.


That said, back to your first statement about your right to live where you want.

Why do you believe this?
In your view, should all borders be open for anyone to travel wherever they wish?
Do you see any problems, social or economic in the removal of all border controls?

FWIW I support the internationally agreed position that countries are sovereign and can therefore determine the rules as to who enters and who can be refused entry.

If you want a full and free discussion, work within the guidelines and take part..
If you want a better forum than this "criminally complicit place" (your views not mine), why not pay a fee and open a brand new web forum of your own.
Then you can allow everyone to take part, with no rules or oppression

U.S. out of North America!

This begs the thought... Obviously you hold an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.
History is littered with those who claim moral superiority, most have none.


Finally there is an acceptance on your part, albeit only minimal, that laws can exist. Also that you accept "filtering" of those who do not abide by the rules.



The rules are clear to everyone who enters Canada, your friend accepted those rules/conditions when she entered Canada.
If she did not, then she would not have entered. The immigration status of those she was visiting is not important at this stage of the discussion.
For some reason, your friend breached the agreed and well defined conditions, she overstayed, this is why she is now being refused entry.
This is not violence, she broke the rules that she agreed to abide by, there are consequences.


"Violence" is a word that you use often, but clearly fail to understand.

Those who have suffered, know of, or have seen true violence would be offended by your continued incorrect use of the word.

My statement  - "Obviously you hold an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument."
If you understood it, IT would enlighten you. BTW just so you understand this time, my quoted statement is a generally accepted definition of the words DELUSION / DELUSIONAL.


It seems strange that you use your friends refusal of entry to scream "violence", when it is nothing of the sort. When this is pointed out, you ignore the subject, go figure?

So you don't want these rules as well. Are you suggesting that we allow people to choose to take any drug they wish, and then, when they are out of their head, they can choose to rape, kill or abuse members of my family, my friends or any member of the public?
Maybe you want anarchy, not me, I have seen enough of it already.

Please note, as you have already decided that I am amoral, why would I bother to waste my time telling you that I have a moral stance?

Are you suggesting that the Mafia and CBSA are identical in their SOP?

I hope that you realize that you are entertaining to those of us who are not bouncing of the "violent, oppressive, evil" walls;... You know, those people that enjoy life

I really wonder if you believe Canada is the place for you, maybe you cold select a country that is more in line with your views (Canadians are allowed to emigrate)?

Apologies to the administrators of this site for the OT nature of the post.
Read it now folks, I am sure that deletion will come eventually

Well said Baloo, it is quite apparent that the OP's friend overstayed and got caught and now he is ticked. There are many countries in the world with unmanned borders should he find that he cannot live in a democratic society

 @ canuck0469, thanks for stating the obvious and contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion. Again, you too completely misunderstood this post. I was questioning the morality/ethics of immigration law -- you *completely* ignored that. It seems like you simply obediently "do what you're told". (Frightening! I suppose in Hitler's germany you would also have simply "followed the rules". He was elected by a majority, you know. If the Jews really didn't like living there, they could move to Somalia, right!)

Also, well done parrotting state propaganda. I already questioned the democratic validity of "immigration law" -- it was never put up to a vote -- but you continue to parrot that it is democratic.

Of course a country has the right to say who can move there, but damn the process could be simplified and streamlined.

Can you support yourself?
Clean criminal record?

Given your hatred of government, I think you should be the one moving to Somalia

Forgive the length and tone of this retort, but I have tried to be thoughtful, and even where I adopt a strict tone, I hope you will remember some of it, and in future some recommendations will sink in through your rejection syndrome, and perhaps be adopted.

You have an idyllic view of life, and some interesting points to raise if only you did not repel people with your inflated rhetoric ad dismissive manner. It is ironic that in a forum dedicated to people who resent being under the thumb of an immigration bureaucracy, your anti-bureaucracy theme is universally rejected.  I think it is your manner of arguing that generates resistance and even open hostility. 

Most reasonable people will consider a differing viewpoint, maybe even adjust their thinking; few will accept having your opinion rammed down their throats.

You immediately repel people by saying that they are slaves to statism if they don't agree with everything you say. You dismissed my support of border controls by alleging that I am “brainwashed”.  You say this apparently without researching my posts and finding the many in which I inveigh against the bloated bureaucracy that is CIC.  You say this without checking my views about Aristotle and  Ayn Rand . You say this without knowing that I vote libertarian whenever possible.  How could you know all this, you may ask. How could you not research all this before labelling me “brainwashed”, I retort.  The onus of research is on the person who levels the criticism.

So, you reached your conclusion about me not through reason and investigation, but through a knee-jerk rejection of my argument, mislabelling me, which in turn allowed you to continue believing in your own  rightness.

There is always something of value in an opposing viewpoint (I'll get to your's later) , but you miss it in your zeal to impose your views.

You might consider deleting sensational words designed to exaggerate reality; this ploy – often used to manipulate readers – must be used adeptly. You use a hammer where you need a scalpel. You use the word “violent” frequently, yet never once show us where the border guard used violence against your friend – beyond denying her entry. “Violence” – to paraphrase many dictionaries -- is the use of excessive physical force, or psychological force (as in extreme interrogation, sleep deprivation, etc). Neither form occurred in your friend's experience, and your desire to label it “violent” seems silly or misguided. The words  “enforcement” or even “repression” are more accurate, and less likely to generate resistance in your audience. People don't like to be manipulated.

If you are going to accuse others of not providing proof for their opinions, you had better do so yourself, but  you don't.  I asked you to explain the morality that transcends the sometimes- mob-mentality of the majority.  You simply referred me to Molyneux's book, without further attempt to summarize, as if the book were sufficient and self-explanatory authority.  It is not. The trouble is, the book raised a plethora of questions from interested readers, questions that Molyneux at first tried to answer in his blog, but eventually admitted that his book cannot be explained adequately in writing, that the questioner should call in during one of Molyneux's radio  programs.

So, if Molyneux himself cannot explain his own book concisely, in less than hundreds of pages,  how can you be sure you understand him correctly?  If Molyneux cals his concepts “slippery”, why are you so cocksure in pretending to understand him, so cocksure  in dismissing opposing views? Maybe by listening more openly, you will adjust your thinking and arrive at an original position,  beyond the work of the academically-failed Molyneux.

You say your morality is “common sense”, yet where it disagrees with the majority's morality, yours transcends the majority. Since the majority defines what is “common”, it seems your morality is “common sense ” except when it isn't, when it becomes transcendent.  You need to re-think this, and make your morality more consistent. A shifting, situational morality is really nothing more than a figment in the mind if the so-called philosopher.

Getting back to the point about bureaucracies, I share your distaste for them. But the polar opposite  of anarchy is no solution either.  In an anarchy, the lowest elements in human society (e.g. mafia ad warlords) are free to band together to rob the innocent.  And they will rob the innocent unless there is an opposing force to restrain them – e.g. government (police force, border guard, etc). It is an unfortunate reality that human nature requires restrictions of its baser instincts.

You want to give free rein to the innocents (like your friend), but not the criminals. Of course you do!; we all do.  But no one – including you  -- has suggested how to distinguish the two with a reduced immigration/border force.  So, bad decisions in favour of not making mistakes are made. This seems to be the necessary evil in an imperfect mechanism to keep the criminals out.  Inveighing against this mechanism is less than useful unless you can propose a practical alternative.

You gloss swiftly over some other problems too. You say that if a country has social programs, stopping fraud is simple.  Yet no government or people has managed to so, ever.  And if it takes only a few minutes for you to devise these protections, why be coy? Share them with us.

Positive, constructive ideas are far more useful than cheap debating tactics. You  sometimes resort to distorting others' evidence in order to dismiss inconvenient contradictions.  For example, when you said that the majority had never voted on border controls, I cited public opinion polls in New Mexico and Arizona showing that these particular majorities did indeed support borders. Rather than deal honestly with polls, either accepting them or refuting them, you recast the question in such a way that the majority's verdict seemed ludicrous. Thus you found a way to dismiss the polls without really dealing with them.

This is faulty logic, and would not pass first-year philosophy in University. If you say you did in fact pass at that level, I say shame on your university.

The closest you come to making a reasonable argument is when you say (probably tongue in cheek) “Maybe I'm wrong.”

Who deletes threads? The administrator?  Or just the author?

Ticked indeed. 

 @ toby, it is not "idyllic" to reject initiating violence against innocent people. To date, nobody here has given the slightest thought about the ethics of that immigration law that violently prevents my friend from being with her sister -- why does it exist? Nobody voted for it. She is innocent. She can support herself. The ONLY thing she did was slightly bend a rule that should never have existed in the first place. (Time limits, monetary extortions, etc.)

Forgive me if I didn't research all your previous posts, but I really didn't need to. There is only valid answer: Immigration law is evil. It pleases me that you're familiar with Rand and Aristotle, but apparently you have a bit more learning to do. (To be fair, if the vast majority of a population is in favour of such an oppressive system, borders might be valid -- but that is IMHO a *very* unrealistic scenario, and the larger the population (from a city block, to a city), the *more* unrealistic it becomes to expect any kind of consensus on this issue -- why on earth would the voters of a city thousands of km away care about what the voters in your city think, about whether their families can be allowed to see each other? The basis of your argument was that we voted for the way things are. The basis of my argument was (1) No, we really didn't vote on this issue! (and as I mentioned before, I am quite confident it would fail in a vote. More precisely, if we could vote now, on whether my friend could be with her sister (again, she doesn't want a penny from anyone), what do you think the results would be? and (2) Why is she being separated in the first place -- considering she is non-violent, non-criminal, and doesn't want a penny from our violent "social security system"?

You're right, perhaps I should have been more specific. She wasn't violently beaten up, but merely threatened to be violently beaten up if she didn't follow their absurd rules. (Remember, nobody here has bothered to question the validity of those rules -- you all simply accept them as a priori valid.) It is exactly the same as when a robber pulls a knife at you on the streets, demanding your money. He hasn't stabbed you yet, but he has threatened to. Violence, and the threat of violence, are essentially the same thing! The heart of the matter is that you people cannot see the (threat of) violence in separating families for *absolutely no reason*. (She broke the rule because it was en evil rule. Arguing that she should be punished *because* she broke the rule is cyclic and evasive.)

Regarding the basis for morality, that really is beyond the scope of this thread. I'd be glad to discuss it with you elsewhere. (Feel free to email me at dennisn @ dennisn.dyndns.org. I'm curious as to where you disagree with him.) My point was simply that it is NOT what the majority says! (And that is what everyone here has been implying -- just because 51% (or 30% these days?) say something is okay, does not lend it a shred of moral validity! (Only popularity.) The fact that nobody here was able to offer a moral justification for why my friend should be separated from her sister, shows how unethical the law is, and how dangerous mindless obedience to nonsensical/unethical rules can be. Frightening.

(Your comments about anarchism are incredibly naive -- I suppose you didn't get a chance to know much of Molyneux's work. They're also off-topic here. Again, feel free to email me to discuss it further.)

Back to the topic, my friend has already been screened and proven to be a good person. I already capitulated for the sake of compromise that screening can be permitted. Every other attempt to restrict movement (time restrictions, extortion, etc), however, are evil.

Regarding the alleged "New Mexico and Arizona" opinion polls -- of course I accept them. Did you disagree with my analysis of them? Don't you think it was incredibly unclear, whether it wasn't in fact asking whether they should support poor immigrants? Is that really your best evidence for popular support of borders -- an incredibly unclear question, given to a notoriously racist population thousands of kilometers away?

 @ Baloo, I already replied to that point of your a number of times:

In Reply #3, last paragraph.
In Reply #9, second paragraph.
In Reply #24, first paragraph.

You are also obfuscating things... yes, obviously there are consequences for breaking absurd and evil rules. And yes, you are still evading the ethics of the issue.

Okay, I get the message. Any substantial criticism of "immigration" is forbidden here. We should all simply obey our masters. The majority must be right. Nothing to see here folks -- go back to your begging -- you do not want to upset your masters! Heil mein Kanada!

If anyone is interested, I managed to save all but the last few posts from the censored "debate" here:
dennisn.dyndns.org/guest/pubstuff/immigration-censored-debate.html

I'm interested to know by what process a thread gets deleted.  Does the administrator scan messages and decide which one(s) are unacceptable, or does someone complain and then the administrator reviews and decides?

As for this debate, I have reached the end of my  patience.  The author simply cannot or will not use reasonable logic; he consistently bends what others say to score points, which really convince only himself. Like his authority for moral superiority, Molyneux, he is a legend in his own mind, and conveniently dismisses others for being brainwashed, or stupid, or ... etc when they don't share his high opinion of his own beliefs.

Molyneux was himself rejected for doctoral work, and spent the ensuing 20-odd years justifying himself by dismissing academia in general. Failures usually do bolster their self-esteem by dismissing their critics. The shame is that Molyneux's ideas might have received a more respectful examination, might have generated a more useful debate had he not lashed out defensively at his more thorough critics. And when pressed too closely, he was not above stifling debate when he banned certain questioning mind from his blog.

I'll end with one final retort.  Dennisn6 denigrates my knowledge of Rand and Aristotle-- with absolutely no knowledge of what I know about them.  I did not discuss their ideas; I  merely mentioned their names.   Instead of debate, he chooses baseless insult -- because he is not capable of more.  He hoists himself on his own petard.

 @ toby, you are a joke. I have posed a number of direct questions to you, and you avoided them all. (What is *your* basis for morality? What is *your* opinion on the morality of the specific rule that is currently prohibiting my friend from being with her family? Do you acknowledge that violently forcing me to pay for "social programs" is -- violence? Considering that we have nothing even close to proportional representation, and considering that nobody here has ever voted directly on this issue -- do you sincerely maintain that these absurd laws are even "democratic"?)

 @ toby. I asked you 4 very precise questions above. You criticized one simply for being leading -- but offerred no disagreement with it, and completely ignored the others. (Those 4 questions were also mentioned at least a few times earlier in the thread -- if you're too lazy or unwilling to understand things, why are you here?)

 @ Baloo, I also already answered that a number of times before. In my very first post, for the first time. I have also elaborated on it a number of times, the very last time in my last post -- which you completely ignored. So, it begs the question again -- if you completely ignored my first post, and all my subsequent explications of it -- why are you here?

I specifically placed it in the *General Discussion* section, to give a broader perspective on the issue. If I was "immigrating" here, I would really have appreciated knowing that there exist sane and moral people here, who reject the initiation of violence, and absurd evil rules that separate families. That's all I really wanted. I sincerely didn't expect much or any opposition. Instead, everyone here without exception has lended their support to the evil rule that is preventing my friend from being with her family, and also on a more general scale, to the violence and evil inherent in the system.

This thread is for anyone who acknowledges the evilness of "immigration law". It was never voted upon. (I would certainly vote against it!) Nobody has the right to tell me who I can invite into MY home. (Theoretically, border-controls might be imaginable on city-ish-scales -- although even there the prospect of a large majority supporting the asinine laws that currently exist is *highly* unlikely.)

I originally started a thread about this, specifically about a friend of mine who is a victim of said asinine and evil laws. Nobody so far has lent even the slightest sympathy to her. Nobody has yet even questioned the morality of those laws. I found the commenters on that thread to be incredibly cold and amoral -- *very frightening*. Here is most of that thread, before the wonderful admins here suppressed it.

dennisn.dyndns.org/guest/pubstuff/immigration-censored-debate.html

I didn't know this site was a promotional campaign for absurd border laws. It's one thing to work within the evil rules our masters give us. It's quite another to support them!

 @ essex0227, as I explained in that thread, she overstayed her year-long visit with her sister, and now they won't let her back in. How on earth is preventing sisters from being together "protecting the country"? I know it might sound arrogant, but everyone really must agree that at least in her case, the law is evil and wrong -- and more generally too, although that will take a few more steps to explain.

 @ essex0227, the whole point of that original thread was questioning the morality of that broken law. Morality transcends the mobs (majority) and our masters -- surely you do not depend on others' opinions to tell you what is right or wrong? If the mobs suddenly proclaim it is "right" to steal from rich people -- would you go along with that majority decision? Nobody has the right to tell me what I can eat. (Evil drug prohibition laws.) Nobody has the right to tell me whether or not my brother can visit me. (Evil immigration laws.)

The "rule" she broke was wrong and evil. That was my primary point.

Foreward: Please do not delete this thread. I think cooler heads will agree that I was never offensive, nor did I ever personally attack anyone -- only specific violent ideas (or those that unjustifiably threaten violence).

This thread is for anyone who acknowledges the evilness of "immigration law". It was never voted upon. (I would certainly vote against it!) Nobody has the right to tell me who I can invite into MY home. (Theoretically, border-controls might be imaginable on city-ish-scales -- although even there the prospect of a large majority supporting the asinine laws that currently exist is *highly* unlikely.)

I originally started a thread about this, specifically about a friend of mine who is a victim of said asinine and evil laws. Nobody so far has lent even the slightest sympathy to her. Nobody has yet even questioned the morality of those laws. I found the commenters on that thread to be incredibly cold and amoral -- *very frightening*. Here is most of that thread, before the wonderful admins here suppressed it.

d ennisn.dyndns.org/guest/pubstuff/immigration-censored-debate.html
(Last Updated: Thu July 14th, noon)

I didn't know this site was a promotional campaign for absurd border laws. It's one thing to work within the evil rules our masters give us. It's quite another to support them!

I'm not sure if you're joking, or deliberately keeping your head buried under the ground. The entire point of the thread was questioning whether it's moral for families to "overstay" their time together! (Ie. whether it's moral in the first place, to keep innocent harmless good families (or friends, et cetera) violently separated.) You are simply repeating things I already explained many times before, and contributing nothing.

I only posted once, and it was an extremely serious and relevant topic. I sincerely doubt this is any kind of spam. And it sincerely confuses me why this thread would be contentious at all. I am merely advocating non-violence! I guess the truth really does hurt some people.