If anyone wants to understand why Argentina is in hot water again $$$..

[toongeorges]

If bajo_cero says there is an influence on nazism in Argentina, I think there is truth to that. Fascism was defeated in Europe by capitalism in the West and communist Russia in the East. The fascist ideology also took hold in Argentina and kept living on, because it was never eradicated as it was elsewhere. Peronism is one form of fascism, military dictatorships are another form. If you tell none of these happened, you are just trolling bajo_cero. Which details are fascist and which are not, feel free to disagree on that.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Not really in a mood for weighing in on any of this (if I would I'd drop some snark about bajo_cero being Godwin's Law incarnate).

But I will mention that it is somewhat astounding for the Supreme Court to issue a document in which the heading "Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación" is set in Comic Sans. Really???

Complain with the SC because it is the standard form.

The Goldwing’s law is a little boring, specially when law 14.354 was declared unconstitutional by law because it was a copy of the 1933 and 1935 citizenship laws of the III Reich that now is resurrected by DNU 70/2017.

 

[ben]

At some point, an overused word ceases to have meaning. That's why we try to be careful with words - to preserve their meaning.

One may well argue that in Nazi Germany, the trains ran on time, ergo insistence on punctuality = Nazification. But that's not usually what people mean by Nazism. When rational people use Nazi references, they are usually referring to egregious - repeat, egregious (you know, the Holocaust and all that?) disregard for human rights, on grounds of race.

There are two separate issues at play when discussing immigration: legality and morality. Legality is defined as being consistent with the Constitution. Morality is less about what is the law than about whether this should be the law.

Bajo is on record as not being able to distinguish between the two, but the distinction still exists nonetheless. A law can be constitutional but morally flawed, even evil (hence the famous phrase of unknown origin "when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"). Conversely, a rule may be unconstitutional but still right policy, in which case the Constitution should be amended, rather than the law repealed. This is what Justice Stevens is arguing regarding the Second Amendment in the US.

The fact of the matter is that in this day and age, as @Somewhereinba said, it is by no means a radical idea for countries to control immigration policy. That the Constitution mandates a more open one is fine, but this does not mean that other ideas are immoral - that is a legal argument to be had in the courts. The debate here is whether this is a good or a bad thing. Is it an immoral thing for a country to wish to exercise greater control? Why?

The Nazi argument is a red herring. Nobody except historians would today remember the Nazi Party if their main thrust was at making it easier to deport non-Germans from Germany. That we talk about Nazis at all today may have more to do with the fact that the Nuremberg Laws started with taking an entire class of existing citizens, and removed their citizenship based on race. (Oh, and proceeded to exterminate them).

To invoke repeatedly the Nazis in the current debate, is to demean the Holocaust. It is to take the mother of cheap shots - to use a supremely powerful emotional association towards a comparatively mundane argument. To do this routinely and incessantly, is to hold nothing sacred. It is, frankly and bluntly put, to be an asshole.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

The purpose of the decree is to expel those who have criminal backgrounds and/or entered the country illegally. Pretty much every developed country has the same law (Australia definitely does). You are being dramatic by suggesting the decree and its implementation is representative of "mild" Nazi Germany. I can tell you after visiting migraciones multiple times over the year that there is no discrimination by race/colour/background. There were multiple Chinese, Africans, Bolivians, Venezuelans of all walks of life who were migrating with more ease than myself. If anything I felt I was being discriminated against coming from a western country - what should have taken 6 months took 1 year + and way more money/troubles than it should have. So although in your head you are fighting a massive battle for open borders and free migration your delivery and comparisons to Nazi germany are misguided. Argentina has one of the most open and free moving migration policies in the world (even with the decree) and its ridiculous you continue to act like its closed off and discriminatory.

You probably read that at newspapers but the Director of Deportation tells judges that the purpose is a) to boycott my work (because they cannot accept that yellow race people gets citizenship plus immigration agents and officers went to jail because of my work) and b) to deport honest immigrants.
The Director of Immigration at Lanata’s tv show asserted that his plan is to deport all the Chinese while Bullrich clarified that the jail for foreignera was for Chinese.
If the massive deportations failed was for the work of several people like me plus the immigration police who refused to make massive deportations and went on strike. All my respect to them.
FYI during the III Reich there were special squads for exterminations, common agents and officers don’t do that.

At some point, an overused word ceases to have meaning. That's why we try to be careful with words - to preserve their meaning.

One may well argue that in Nazi Germany, the trains ran on time, ergo insistence on punctuality = Nazification. But that's not usually what people mean by Nazism. When rational people use Nazi references, they are usually referring to egregious - repeat, egregious (you know, the Holocaust and all that?) disregard for human rights, on grounds of race.

There are two separate issues at play when discussing immigration: legality and morality. Legality is defined as being consistent with the Constitution. Morality is less about what is the law than about whether this should be the law.

Bajo is on record as not being able to distinguish between the two, but the distinction still exists nonetheless. A law can be constitutional but morally flawed, even evil (hence the famous phrase of unknown origin "when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"). Conversely, a rule may be unconstitutional but still right policy, in which case the Constitution should be amended, rather than the law repealed. This is what Justice Stevens is arguing regarding the Second Amendment in the US.

The fact of the matter is that in this day and age, as @Somewhereinba said, it is by no means a radical idea for countries to control immigration policy. That the Constitution mandates a more open one is fine, but this does not mean that other ideas are immoral - that is a legal argument to be had in the courts. The debate here is whether this is a good or a bad thing. Is it an immoral thing for a country to wish to exercise greater control? Why?

The Nazi argument is a red herring. Nobody except historians would today remember the Nazi Party if their main thrust was at making it easier to deport non-Germans from Germany. That we talk about Nazis at all today may have more to do with the fact that the Nuremberg Laws started with taking an entire class of existing citizens, and removed their citizenship based on race. (Oh, and proceeded to exterminate them).

To invoke repeatedly the Nazis in the current debate, is to demean the Holocaust. It is to take the mother of cheap shots - to use a supremely powerful emotional association towards a comparatively mundane argument. To do this routinely and incessantly, is to hold nothing sacred. It is, frankly and bluntly put, to be an asshole.

While I’m very specific, you are not.
In our legal system Judges are banned to judge according to moral, this is why I do not care about it, because I know the legal system.

I have the feeling that for you is like some kind of taboo to talk or discuss about nazism but, then, you cannot understand this country.

The nazism was adopted at the Peronist Constitution in a mild way because Faustino Legon, dean of the Catholic Universiry, found immoral the extermination of human being so, he proposed to deport those who were not Italians, French and Spaniards. The same made later several dictators including Macri whose argument trying to improve the commerce with Europe were ethnics.

At the local law the nazi procedure was introduced by Dr. Podetti so, when judges at Court quote him (a lot) they are enforcing nazi civil procedure.

When judges are replaced by police (Macri’s DNU 70/2017), something that was an scandal even in the Third Reich, you are talking about nazism because the legal system is juriadictional: judges not police.

You should not underestimate the infiltration of nazism in the local institutions in Argentina.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

The Preamble of the NC states that the benefits of freedom is for us, for our children and for all the men of the world who wants to inhabits Argentina.

The immigration law, instead, requires you to apply for a visa even you live here, this lack of recognition to the inhabitants rights can be trace to My Kampf where Hitler makes the distinction between citizens, subjects and foreigners. There are not foreigners at the NC, there are only human beings who inhabits the AR territory.

The difference between Hitler’s and the Brithish medieval duty of obedience is the racial discrimination because in german and Spanish, not so much in English, nationality is related to ethnics. While there is only one nationality of the British Kingdom not discrimination between Welsh, Scotts and Brithish, the difference in Spanish is racial.

I give you an example, nazism resurrected the division between nationality and citizenahip. I have the case of one member of this forums who is caucasic where the judge didn’t recognize the right to her daughter to get citizenship by option (when your parents are argentines) because he separated citizenship from nationality and as soon as they got citizenship but the race didn’t changed, it was rejected. If this is not nazi, well, this is because you didn’t read the citizenship laws and decrees of the III Reich.

In any case, this is a Democratic Republic and if you read Tiffany he explains very well how this 2 systems do not fit because you have subdits only in a Monarchy or totalitarian State.

So, where is the racial discrimination? At visas. To delegate Court desicions to administrative police, in this case the Consul, is the thesis of the nazi Baumbach.

The Second Quinquenal Plan had 2 secret chapters where they developed a secret plan of race selection of the immigration and population. The dictator Ongania clarified that the immigration accepted was italian, Spaniard and French. Macri’s plan of government copies this mega decree of Ongania that pretended to replance the NC.

The more I investigate the more I discover that all the ways takes to Berlin 1933 and Nuremberg 1935. There are many aspects, very subtle, on how the nazi civil procedure works because everybody focused on the law not the procedure law, and the denial of justice happends on the procedure.

The problem is that some academics continued teaching nazi law and procedure but cheating generations of lawyers and judges because nazism survived because nazis were not killed like in Europe.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

You can easily google the very close relationship of Argentina and South Africa’s apartheid:
http://www.infonews.com/nota/112914/la-dictadura-argentina-mantuvo-lazos-muy

 

[Somewhereinba]

At some point, an overused word ceases to have meaning. That's why we try to be careful with words - to preserve their meaning.

One may well argue that in Nazi Germany, the trains ran on time, ergo insistence on punctuality = Nazification. But that's not usually what people mean by Nazism. When rational people use Nazi references, they are usually referring to egregious - repeat, egregious (you know, the Holocaust and all that?) disregard for human rights, on grounds of race.

There are two separate issues at play when discussing immigration: legality and morality. Legality is defined as being consistent with the Constitution. Morality is less about what is the law than about whether this should be the law.

Bajo is on record as not being able to distinguish between the two, but the distinction still exists nonetheless. A law can be constitutional but morally flawed, even evil (hence the famous phrase of unknown origin "when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"). Conversely, a rule may be unconstitutional but still right policy, in which case the Constitution should be amended, rather than the law repealed. This is what Justice Stevens is arguing regarding the Second Amendment in the US.

The fact of the matter is that in this day and age, as @Somewhereinba said, it is by no means a radical idea for countries to control immigration policy. That the Constitution mandates a more open one is fine, but this does not mean that other ideas are immoral - that is a legal argument to be had in the courts. The debate here is whether this is a good or a bad thing. Is it an immoral thing for a country to wish to exercise greater control? Why?

The Nazi argument is a red herring. Nobody except historians would today remember the Nazi Party if their main thrust was at making it easier to deport non-Germans from Germany. That we talk about Nazis at all today may have more to do with the fact that the Nuremberg Laws started with taking an entire class of existing citizens, and removed their citizenship based on race. (Oh, and proceeded to exterminate them).

To invoke repeatedly the Nazis in the current debate, is to demean the Holocaust. It is to take the mother of cheap shots - to use a supremely powerful emotional association towards a comparatively mundane argument. To do this routinely and incessantly, is to hold nothing sacred. It is, frankly and bluntly put, to be an asshole.

Perfectly said. This guy thinks he is up on stage in front of a judge throwing Nazi accusations around without a real understanding of how history and our society views the term. He uses the term to create dramatic meaning when there is no need for it nor is it appropriate to the discussion. The fact he does not understand this is worrying but not surprising of a person in his position who is used to bending truths for financial gain.

 

[Somewhereinba]

You probably read that at newspapers but the Director of Deportation tells judges that the purpose is a) to boycott my work (because they cannot accept that yellow race people gets citizenship plus immigration agents and officers went to jail because of my work) and b) to deport honest immigrants.
The Director of Immigration at Lanata’s tv show asserted that his plan is to deport all the Chinese while Bullrich clarified that the jail for foreignera was for Chinese.
If the massive deportations failed was for the work of several people like me plus the immigration police who refused to make massive deportations and went on strike. All my respect to them.
FYI during the III Reich there were special squads for exterminations, common agents and officers don’t do that.



While I’m very specific, you are not.
In our legal system Judges are banned to judge according to moral, this is why I do not care about it, because I know the legal system.

I have the feeling that for you is like some kind of taboo to talk or discuss about nazism but, then, you cannot understand this country.

The nazism was adopted at the Peronist Constitution in a mild way because Faustino Legon, dean of the Catholic Universiry, found immoral the extermination of human being so, he proposed to deport those who were not Italians, French and Spaniards. The same made later several dictators including Macri whose argument trying to improve the commerce with Europe were ethnics.

At the local law the nazi procedure was introduced by Dr. Podetti so, when judges at Court quote him (a lot) they are enforcing nazi civil procedure.

When judges are replaced by police (Macri’s DNU 70/2017), something that was an scandal even in the Third Reich, you are talking about nazism because the legal system is juriadictional: judges not police.

You should not underestimate the infiltration of nazism in the local institutions in Argentina.

For a country that is supposedly still infiltrated with nazism they are doing a terrible job of enforcing their race goals (whatever that may be). Argentina has one of the most multicultural diverse populations of poor,middle and rich in the whole of South America. Nazi Germany was built on the idea of race segregation and a higher race - that is not Argentina - its the opposite. You are treating your little bubble of law as if you are fighting the SS and protecting some race (no idea which) from mass extermination. As I have said if your theory is true that the country is based on nazism and implementing its teachings then its doing a really really shitty job. This country is one of the most disorganised melting pots of people you will find anywhere. Every single time I went to migraciones I saw every nationality you could imagine from all backgrounds getting residency papers approved - so stop playing the oppression card and making ridiculous comparisons.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I already explained in other threads what was the idea of a local superior race of Zuloaga and how Ongania specified that immigration should be italian, French and Spaniard.

The really bad job you mention is because in the last 30 years there was not absolute power and there were democratic governments not based on racism until now. Korean, Chinese and African immigration is recent. Most of border line countries immigration was illegal but there was a massive amnesty called Patria Grande during Nestor K administration.

But this is too much for you. You are Ok with it is all about la pesada herencia, right?

Well, you are free to continue living in your bubble but you are far away from understanding this country and how the system is working right now.
Ignorancy is a bliss. Remain ignorant because reality stress you.

 

[Somewhereinba]

I already explained in other threads what was the idea of a local superior race of Zuloaga and how Ongania specified that immigration should be italian, French and Spaniard.

The really bad job you mention is because in the last 30 years there was not absolute power and there were democratic governments not based on racism until now. Korean, Chinese and African immigration is recent. Most of border line countries immigration was illegal but there was a massive amnesty called Patria Grande during Nestor K administration.

But this is too much for you. You are Ok with it is all about la pesada herencia, right?

Well, you are free to continue living in your bubble but you are far away from understanding this country and how the system is working right now.
Ignorancy is a bliss. Remain ignorant because reality stress you.

So all the Chinese and African migrants that were getting their residencies by the hundreds every day at migraciones are fake robots? Chinese made up more of the people than even Bolivians and Brazilians every time I was there. But what do I know. BTW immigration and visas are 'racist' by nature - why do you think every country has different migration laws depending of you country of origin? Goodluck trying to migrate from Iran to Saudi Arabia or China to Taiwan. Every country must be based on nazism according to your logic even though the reality of Argentina is different. You only deal with migration cases that go bad which is why your viewpoint is severely limited to the negative side.

I'm telling you with my own eyes that there were more chinese getting residency than brazilians and bolivians at the migraciones I kept having to visit. They also had their own chinese agent who clearly was 'in' with the people at migraciones and could simply walk in throw the forms on the bench and get service instantly meanwhile all the others had to wait hours. Australia must be a very nazi country considering how tough our immigration laws are - what a disgrace we are ! Just because Argentina doesn't have an open border policy that you so desperately desire does not make it a nazi country - its ridiculous. Argentina is however closest to the most open border country in the world which is why I find it so funny you are complaining about migration discrimination.