Should Immigrants be implanted with microchips?

[HERESY]

So, unless you descend from the native peoples of America, be careful about who you label an illegal immigrant.

^^Read that^^ that has everything to do with illegal immigrants!

What I am saying is I don't see anything of your own knowledge/merit linking this thread to the thread you mentioned. The thread you posted is attempting to squeeze four hundred years of wrong doing into a multi-paragraph history lesson. Where do YOUR views fit in, and how do YOUR views fit into the scope of the topic? Simply typing an excerpt from a previous written post does nothing for the other readers (nor myself.) Now, maybe we should go into the FACT that MANY mexicans/latinos ONLY acknowledge the NATIVE americans when it suits them and there purpose. Maybe we can also discuss the fact that mexico doesn't allow a lot of illegal immigration?

Let me have your personal opinion on something. Would it be correct for African Americans to go to Afrika and take over on the sole grounds that our ancestors were slaves? If so what specific countries would we be entitled to dwell in? Also, if someone lost a piece of land as a result of WAR can you explain (in a logical manner) why that group of people OR their descendents are entitled to the land?

 

[miggidy]

Monitoring workers who will make money and contribute to the economy (by paying taxes in some forms) is different from monitoring people who come to visit.

Why would you want to monitor them differently?
Isn't the idea of chipping them for the purpose of keeping track of them?

 

[HERESY]

Why would you want to monitor them differently?
Isn't the idea of chipping them for the purpose of keeping track of them?

Why WOULDN'T you want to monitor them differently? One is obviously going to LEAVE (or so we assume) after they have spent enough time visiting. These people have gone through the steps, obtained visas etc. The other group of people as of yet do not have visas, have no documentation, and do not plan on leaving (unless forced to.) What would be the purpose of monitoring them if we are talking about a GUEST WORKERS PROGRAM. You have two keywords here and they are GUEST and WORKER. These people are coming to WORK not drink beer. These people are GUESTS meaning they will be required to LEAVE after the gig is up. These people will be required to pay some form of tax (besides sales tax) so it is only LOGICAL that you keep track of them differently than you do people who visit.

BTW, I am talking about alternative methods to chipping. Please stay within the confines of the topic and what has been posted. In case you have missed it here it is again:

So, what other methods can be used to monitor the guest worker program?

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

Even if EVERYONE opposes this...the govenment will STILL do it...aint that a bitch??

 

[Gas One]

the only humans that should ever get microchips implanted in them are child rapists.

IMO, crossing a border illegally isnt a big enough reason to make a human a living "blip" on a coordinate map.

plus the shit aint even humane, plus america has no right to do anything to mexican citizens outside of send them back to mexico. what if you give all these people chips and then send them back to mexico and due to having a chip, they stay in mexico? youre still lightweight spying on mexicos citizens by doing that. what if they legally become citizens? they just have some special ass chip in them where the goverment can follow them all their life in america? thats fucked.

whats next, all the blacks in the ghettos get one too?

 

[Calm 1 NPK 503]

Would it be correct for African Americans to go to Afrika and take over on the sole grounds that our ancestors were slaves?

If they chose to go back to the land were their ancestors were from so be it. Does that mean they have to go back no it doesn't. The fact that African Americans are descendents of slaves does not make them illegal in my views they were taken away against their will as are land has been occupied & settled by liars, rapists & thieves(Europeans). Not all European descendets fall into the catagory of which I just stated but their ancestors were just that so don't get it twisted.

If so what specific countries would we be entitled to dwell in?

How would I know, it would be pure choice of those who have the choice of returning to their ancestoral home land.

Also, if someone lost a piece of land as a result of WAR can you explain (in a logical manner) why that group of people OR their descendents are entitled to the land?

Treaties are a agreements between 2 Nations as we know & treaties are also basically a contract. All treaties have been broken if it were a broken contract who would be at fault. Treaties are Law & Contracts are terms of. If I was to breach a contract I would be held liable for any and all damages so if treaties were broken who is to be held accountable for any and all damages done? So with that the possesion of land does this change under the broken of a treaty? Maybe on paper but the rights to the land are still that of native/indigenous peoples that is why there are Hunting/Fishing/Land/Timber Rights & so for.

 

[HERESY]

If they chose to go back to the land were their ancestors were from so be it.

Why the circle talk? A simple yes or no will suffice. Would it be correct for African Americans to go to Afrika and take over on the sole grounds that our ancestors were slaves?

Does that mean they have to go back no it doesn't.

More circle talk.

The fact that African Americans are descendents of slaves does not make them illegal in my views

Since this is your belief what is your take on african americans who speak out against illegal immigration and why should they be careful about who they label as immigrants?

they were taken away against their will as are land has been occupied & settled by liars, rapists & thieves(Europeans).

You have no argument here.

Not all European descendets fall into the catagory of which I just stated but their ancestors were just that so don't get it twisted

No argument here.

How would I know, it would be pure choice of those who have the choice of returning to their ancestoral home land.

So basically you are saying it would be ok to simply plop up in Afrika and claim a piece of land knowing full well you don't know WHERE you actually come from or what part of Afrika you SHOULD be in? Basically you are saying it is ok to go ahead and disrupt the current infrastructure already in place.

Treaties are a agreements between 2 Nations as we know & treaties are also basically a contract.

Ok, but what treaty gave illegal immigrants the right to come to america any time they wished?

All treaties have been broken if it were a broken contract who would be at fault.

This does not make any sense. Please clarify your position.

Treaties are Law & Contracts are terms of.

You have already established this.

If I was to breach a contract I would be held liable for any and all damages

IF that is stated in the contract you would be held liable for any and all damages.

so if treaties were broken who is to be held accountable for any and all damages done?

See the above.

So with that the possesion of land does this change under the broken of a treaty?

If this were a stipulation agreed upon by both parties yes the land would change hands. If this is something someone pulled out of their ass hell no.

Maybe on paper but the rights to the land are still that of native/indigenous peoples that is why there are Hunting/Fishing/Land/Timber Rights & so for.

How does this tie into illegal immigration and millions of illegal immigrants from mexico entering the country every year?

 

[Calm 1 NPK 503]

How does this tie into illegal immigration and millions of illegal immigrants from mexico entering the country every year?

Every thing in the world is connected like a spiders web.

the question is & should be why are Mexican considered illegal because of an imaginary line?

 

[HERESY]

Every thing in the world is connected like a spiders web.

the question is & should be why are Mexican considered illegal because of an imaginary line?

Once again you avoid the questions asked of you by attempting to persuade the readers with circle talk and jargon. Since you obviously lack the mental capacity to form a logical and original thought of your own, I will bring us back to the original topic which is "Should Immigrants be implanted with microchips", and if you can't stay within the confines of the thread or offer something that is relevant, I ask that you refrain from posting in this thread. Please contribute something to the discussion or don't post in this thread at all.

 

[miggidy]

Why WOULDN'T you want to monitor them differently? One is obviously going to LEAVE (or so we assume) after they have spent enough time visiting. These people have gone through the steps, obtained visas etc. The other group of people as of yet do not have visas, have no documentation, and do not plan on leaving (unless forced to.) What would be the purpose of monitoring them if we are talking about a GUEST WORKERS PROGRAM. You have two keywords here and they are GUEST and WORKER. These people are coming to WORK not drink beer. These people are GUESTS meaning they will be required to LEAVE after the gig is up. These people will be required to pay some form of tax (besides sales tax) so it is only LOGICAL that you keep track of them differently than you do people who visit.

BTW, I am talking about alternative methods to chipping. Please stay within the confines of the topic and what has been posted. In case you have missed it here it is again:

So, what other methods can be used to monitor the guest worker program?

In a perfect world, every visitor would leave.
After all, guest workers are required to leave just like anyone else who's here via visas.

I haven't read much about the guest worker program but I'm sure guest workers will recieve similar "documentation" to those of whom are here with visas.
Based on the methods we use right now, this is sufficient enough for "monitoring" guest workers.