Ho hum? Is he the leader of some failed Communist state? or it that your reason for wanting immigration controls "of some type or other"?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

He's got to you Legal.

Suggest you take a break from conversing with a particular poster.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Perhaps,Matthew (and echoing my own thoughts)but my post was to you not him,in light of your post

A terrorist and terrorist sympathizer.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

You disagree with Farage - wow, who would have thought that - and he is a "politician" - not much gets past you does it.

You keep saying that I would booby trap the homes of immigrants. Can you say where I have ever said this? Would you like to apologise for making such an outrageous accusation.

You say there are "political,economic or social" reasons for having immigration controls. How about some examples of these reasons. What exactly are the problems that your immigration controls would seek to address?

Yes, I do aspire to zero immigration as near as is practicable and in our interests.

No, you infer incorrectly - your knee-jerk politically correct prejudices once again; I would not have ethnicity, race or religion part of criteria regarding admissibility for immigration.

We should withdraw from any convention that hinders our ability to control our own borders or is detrimental to our interests.

I would not be in the EU so would not be party to the shambles that is their 'free movement'.

Yes, I would repatriate all illegal immigrants.

To counter the 'push' factors I would encourage policies that facilitate the growth of proper democracies and the downfall of appalling governments like Zimbabwe's.

Of course there should be equality for all who are already living here regardless of race, religion or ethnicity. That equality should of course include such things as the freedom for bakeries to refuse to support same sex marriage,freedom of speech to criticise belief systems, immigration policy etc. People should also be free to move home without being called a Fascist for doing so.

Edited by leggedstruggle (10 Aug 2015 12.37pm)

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

The ideology and the rhetoric. Cuba, for example, and for whatever view you may personally have of it in terms of freedom, places a very significant emphasis on the provision of its people, as opposed to the nation state (standards of health provision and education in Cuba massively exceed that of most similar third world countries).

Cuba, spent most of its existence as part of the Soviet satellite state, and engages in internationalism which isn't typically a fascist trait - Nationalism isn't that much of a tennet in Soviet or Cuban politics.

Communism and fascism (and especially National Socialism) have a lot of shared ideology (as fascism originated as a response to the appeal of communism), what tends to differ is the organization of the state and itsbody politic, the political rhetoric and probably most notably how those bodies of state function, rather than its actions. Both Fascism and Socialism place great emphasis on the power of unions as a means of protecting the working class, the difference is that in socialism, those organizations are formed and directed for the working class, where as in fascism they serve the state directly.

Whilst it can seem that's the same thing, its worth remembering that in Poland the rise of Solidarity stems from the Unions against the Polish communist state - similarly Union and state factions in both Hungary and Chechslovakia were instrumental in the both famous uprisings.

In Zimbabwe, there was the movement of reclaiming land, not for the state, but for the black farmers from private ownership (a disaster).

In the way that the term fascism gets used in general life, somewhat ignorantly, it could be applied to both Soviet style communism, Chinese State communism, Spanish Falangism, Pan Arabic Baathism or Argentinian Juntas; but there are very significant differences (notably in the internal politics and power structure). Also, traditionally both Communism and Fascism are 'opposed forces'.

Similarly one could look a Capitalist Democracies and label them the same, but when you look internally you see a big difference in terms of structure and organization, as well as orientation, whilst obstentially championing many of the same causes and ideals.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]