Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

The First Nazi City in America


Recommended Posts

“The First Nazi City in America”

Tuesday, July 18 2006 @ 04:51 AM PDT

Contributed by: Anonymous

Views: 1484

FascismEveryone will have to register their nationality with the government. No one will be exempt. People of certain nationalities will be targeted for removal. Those who look like they might be from those nations will be marked as suspects, constantly subject to harassment, official and unofficial.

“The First Nazi City in America”

by Juan Santos

Everyone will have to register their nationality with the government. No one will be exempt. People of certain nationalities will be targeted for removal. Those who look like they might be from those nations will be marked as suspects, constantly subject to harassment, official and unofficial.

Certain people, based on their nationality, will not be allowed to work. They will not be allowed to live in this place. They will be denied access to hospitals, to doctors. They will not be allowed to purchase medicine or food. Their children will be driven from the schools.

Every store clerk will become a race cop, compelled by law to check the papers of every customer they find “suspect.” Everyone who isn’t white will be challenged at the point of sale for any commodity they might need or want. The official language will be English: only. Those who try to shelter, clothe, feed, or give gainful employment or medical assistance to the targeted population will be punished.

According to the LA Times, when the law passed, white citizens burst into applause. The Times reported the reaction of one white woman to the news: "The only ones who are against it are the Hispanics," she said, "and that's because it's against them."

This isn’t South Africa under Apartheid; it’s not the Deep South under Jim Crow. It’s not Nazi Germany, or 1984 . It’s Hazleton Pennsylvania, USA- population 31,000. The year is 2006 in the Common Era: 514 years since the white invasion of the Americas.

Let’s make one thing clear; none of this is about “illegal immigration.” It’s not even about immigration.

Before it passed, Anna Arias spoke at the Hazelton council meeting against the ordinance, warning that its approval would make Hazleton "the first Nazi city in the country." When she asked the crowd if they would deport the children of undocumented workers – utterly “legal” US citizens - the crowd shouted “Yes!”

There’s only one thing the “immigration debate” is about: It’s about white nationalism.

The law recently passed by the Hazelton City Council in a 4-1 vote wasn’t the brain child of anyone in Hazleton. It’s a copycat measure based on a design by a xenophobe from San Bernardino, California by the name of Joe Turner.

Turner, age 27, is an angry young white man with a sneering manner who heads up a group of Minutemen-style thugs called Save Our State (SOS.) He was the author of the original Hazleton-style measure, one that recently failed to get on the ballot in his home town.

Turner’s group has appeared publicly with members of the neo-Nazi organization Stormfront in tow; he says California is being turned into a “Third World Cesspool” by migrants, that Mexican culture is “inferior” to white European culture and that being a white nationalist “doesn’t make you a racist.”

“Americans,” Turner says, “are tired of watching their great American culture disappear, only to watch it be replaced by other cultures that are inferior and contradictory to everything this country was built upon.”

Turner says, “Gone are the days when we allowed our opponents to define the terminology of the debate.” In an SOS email thread entitled “Racism Redefined,” SOS members show what he means:

One writes: “I say: "Racist and proud of it" when they hurl their slime at me.”

Everyone who hates migrants and wants them gone or under lockdown denies their feelings in the matter have anything to do with race – even Turner, when he’s pressed.

That goes for Hazleton mayor Louis Barletta as well; having copied the persecutorial legislation advanced by Turner, he denies being "racist, intolerant and unfair," claiming that "illegal is illegal" and that the Hazleton ordinance doesn’t "target any particular race."

But demographic trends show that the nation as a whole will be half peoples of color by 2050, a fact that causes no small unease among white cultural conservatives across the country, especially in the “Red States” which are largely white, and whose populations have recently shifted in both culture and color.

Barletta is no exception. The very presence of non-white people disturbs him.

"There's no place for me to hide in a small city," he said, according to the Times. "I get it in the grocery store, I get it at the lunch counter, when I get my morning coffee, when I'm pumping gas.

"People are begging me, because we are losing the one asset that this city has to offer — our quality of life."

That’s the same complaint Joe Turner and overt white nationalist groups raise when they say US cities are turning into “Third World Cesspools.”

"It's about time," said Francis X. Tucci, a white business owner and lifelong resident of Hazleton. "We were a nice community," she added. Now the “nice” community is 30% Brown. One anti-migrant commentator wrote that the new law would frighten migrants. “The only people it will scare Christian,” he wrote, “are those here illegally and they should be scared.”

“The city's population has shot from 5% Hispanic to 30% Hispanic in only 6 years,” he wrote. “While not all are illegal aliens, there is suspicion that a large majority are.”

Hazleton will hunt down its suspects through every “legal” means, using police, health and code officers. “It could be a routine traffic stop or a code violation,” Barletta said. “When we do come across someone here illegally, we will find their place of employment if there is one and where they live. We would be the first city that would be going after businesses where they work and the place where they sleep.”

In a Freudian slip, he added "The illegal citizens, I would recommend they leave."

The Hazleton Illegal Immigration Relief Act forces anyone seeking to rent a dwelling in the city to apply to the city for a residency license and to submit to an investigation of their citizenship status.

Landlords who rent to people without a residency license will be fined $1,000 for each undocumented tenant on their premises and $100 per day the renter remains there without a permit.

Business owners who hire, rent property to, or provide either goods or services to migrants will lose their business permit for five years on a first offense and 10 years on a second, and find themselves ineligible for city contracts.

Barletta sites crime and economic stressors as among the principal reasons for targeting the brown population of the city. But the reality is that migrants have been an immense boon to the Hazleton economy, creating 60 new businesses and markedly boosting the value of real estate. Only a year ago Barletta was bragging that the economy was going through an unprecedented boom, due to migration. Today he says, "Illegal aliens are a drain on our resources, and they are not welcome here.”

In the meantime total arrests are down and violent crimes of all descriptions are down since the influx of Dominicans, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans began, while, predictably in any community of color, drug related arrests are up.

Barletta says "we are arresting illegal individuals much more often than we ever have." He doesn’t specify if the arrests are proportional to the population growth in the community, whether there is a differential in the rate of arrests for brown and white people, nor what role racial profiling might play in arrest figures.

Barletta admits the figures don’t back him up. But that’s not the point. The point is that the stereotypes about “crime” and “poverty” are so widespread and deeply entrenched that, even when unequivocally contradicted by hard data, they can be used to stir up a fear driven racist backlash against communities of color – and that is just what Barletta has done.

He knows what his white constituents want.

The white people of Hazleton want to be separate, apart: That’s what Apartheid means. It’s Afrikaans for "Separateness.” Under international law, Apartheid is a Crime Against Humanity.

The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid defines the following acts as criminal:

"Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association…"

No one in Hazleton will ever be tried – much less convicted – under the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The US is one of a handful of nations that – through Democrat and Republican administrations alike – has refused to sign the treaty.

Besides, official white Amerika will never admit that the Chican@ and Mexican@ people, for example, are one people: inseparable; they will never admit that to attack one segment of the community is to attack the whole; they will never admit that Chican@s, Mexican@s and Native Americans are a single group of indigenous descent, an ethnic and racial group that is being singled out for attack.

A Hazleton ophthalmologist – a Puerto Rican – said, "We are family. If you insult part of the family, you insult the whole family."

Official Amerika will never admit that the matter of “national origin” and “immigration status” is little more than a thin excuse for ethnic suppression and ethnic cleansing.

A passage from Ellen Barry’s report on Hazleton in the LA Times makes the point:

“White people feel free to speak openly about their annoyance with immigrants, said Jessica Cruz, who waits tables in two local diners.

“Cruz sputtered with anger recalling a recent day when she greeted three friends in Spanish, and a customer looked up from his seat, pointed his finger at her and told her to speak English. Another customer looked into the kitchen and said he couldn't wait until Immigration came to take away the Mexicans.”

Faced with a trio of oppressions – Apartheid style banishment, deportation and racial profiling, brown people are already leaving Hazleton. “They feel like this is racism,” said the publisher of El Mensajero – the community’s newspaper.

They may have no place to go.

What awaits them is a nation poised to give birth to a new Jim Crow, poised at the edge of fascism; a Congress that wants to deport millions and a string of localities poised to make the nation a patchwork of little Nurembergs, like the place where the Nazi laws on citizenship and race were forged in 1935.

It has come this far. The national movement for migrant’s rights must act now and bring all its resources to bear to wipe the Hazleton law clean from the slate.

While there’s still time.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?...060718045142617

Link to comment

This isn’t South Africa under Apartheid; it’s not the Deep South under Jim Crow. It’s not Nazi Germany, or 1984

I don’t get the 1984 reference…

When she asked the crowd if they would deport the children of undocumented workers – utterly “legal” US citizens - the crowd shouted “Yes!”

Now I know that’s not legal….

I expect this law to be in then court system by the end of the year, if we are lucky some judge will have the balls, and legal precedent, to kill it…

Link to comment

I did 60 seconds of research on this which involved looking at the wikipedia article. If the article is correct, this is a huge exaggeration.

Link? I'm too lazy to do even 60 seconds of research.

Still, though, this whole immigration thing is getting out of hand. I talked to a couple French guys about it and they all thought it was ridiculous. One of them went so far as to say that Americans aren't even a people, they're just a bunch of Europeans who came in and killed all the Indians and are now claiming to have some sort of "right" to North America.

I must say, he made a good argument.

This is fucking ridiculous, even if it's exagerrated.

Link to comment

Link? I'm too lazy to do even 60 seconds of research.

Still, though, this whole immigration thing is getting out of hand. I talked to a couple French guys about it and they all thought it was ridiculous. One of them went so far as to say that Americans aren't even a people, they're just a bunch of Europeans who came in and killed all the Indians and are now claiming to have some sort of "right" to North America.

I must say, he made a good argument.

This is fucking ridiculous, even if it's exagerrated.

He made a really, really ignorant argument. For one, we bought about a third of our territories from the French, so we at least have a legal right to the land.

The Native American issue was the biggest bloody mistake of our history, yes- but if your French friend wants to start talking smack about our right to the land, poke him about his own country's history... and prod him about that unfortunate bit where they enthusiastically took the ideas behind our war for independence, and turned it into a long period of gore and murder.

And I'd say it wasn't exagerrated too far- it was a very Gonzo sort of piece, applying subjectivity to illustrate the Truth of the matter. The laws applied to that town are strict to the point of fascism- they really are forcing store clerks into a quasi-police force, and given that the law inherently singles out a single and very specific group of people, the racist undercurrent is Strong and Obvious.

Link to comment

According to the Wikipedia article, it's only illegal immigrants that are punished.

If that's the case, good for them. America should give no welcome whatsoever to illegal immigrants. But if it really is legal immigrants, then they are racist morons and the federal government should intervene (if possible).

What's so wrong with illegal immigrants? The majority of them can't afford the inherent expenses of going through the legal process, at any rate, and they certainly can't live off the utter lack of jobs back where they came from. Just because they're a huge economic inconvenience while we're in the midst of a deficit (does anybody recall an immigration problem during the Clinton surplus?) doesn't make them evil.

Heck, the Cubans get in absolutely scot-free if they can avoid our coast guard.

Personally, this is one of the incredibly rare times I agree with Bush- exporting, what, twelve million people in dire need of the services we could've easily provided not ten years ago is a stupid, stupid move. Not only will that leave long-term damages to our economy, but the sheer cost of either moving them or jailing them is mind-blowing. Instead, increase ease of access to worker permits and upgrade the ancient and burdensome citizenship process. At the very least, you'll have a few million more voters that actually care about the path this country takes...

Link to comment

I love a good unbiased article... :dry:

That's what I was thinking. This article makes me want to side with the people who wrote the law because it is so obviously one-sided that I wouldn't want to agree with its author.

Since the article makes no mention of what the law actually says, and does little more than blindly accuse in a manner that appears to be an attempt to copy Anne Coulter, I will ignore it and think about this law when I get some useable material.

To the underlying debate, illegal immigrants have broken the law. I would like a different system, but they broke the law, and they shouldn't be surprised if they get punished.

Link to comment

To the underlying debate, illegal immigrants have broken the law. I would like a different system, but they broke the law, and they shouldn't be surprised if they get punished.

They're not surprised. But they are justifiably angry, given the circumstances.

Besides. Law, Custom, Morality? All are transient. If the law doesn't serve the Greater Good, it's the law that needs changing, not the violators that needs punishment.

Link to comment

That's what I was thinking. This article makes me want to side with the people who wrote the law because it is so obviously one-sided that I wouldn't want to agree with its author.

Since the article makes no mention of what the law actually says, and does little more than blindly accuse in a manner that appears to be an attempt to copy Anne Coulter, I will ignore it and think about this law when I get some useable material.

To the underlying debate, illegal immigrants have broken the law. I would like a different system, but they broke the law, and they shouldn't be surprised if they get punished.

Those are pretty much my exact thoughts on the subject.

Link to comment

What's so wrong with illegal immigrants? The majority of them can't afford the inherent expenses of going through the legal process, at any rate, and they certainly can't live off the utter lack of jobs back where they came from. Just because they're a huge economic inconvenience while we're in the midst of a deficit (does anybody recall an immigration problem during the Clinton surplus?) doesn't make them evil.

No, they aren't evil, just as most other types of criminals are not evil. Doesn't mean they have a right to be here.

Link to comment

They're not surprised. But they are justifiably angry, given the circumstances.

Besides. Law, Custom, Morality? All are transient.

Transient they may be, but they can't be ignored without creating chaos, death, destruction, mayhem and the like.

If the law doesn't serve the Greater Good, it's the law that needs changing, not the violators that needs punishment.

here we get to the core issue, the fundamental disagreement. From your statements, I must assume that you believe that the US government should enact laws to serve all people. If I'm wrong, please explain what you mean by Greater Good

I believe that well that might be a good idea, it is currently impractical in some areas (notably regarding terrorists and other groups who wish to cause death destruction and mayhem) and so I have no problem with the US givernment being practical and enacting laws to serve only all American citizens.

Link to comment

Not so much serve all people as to work towards the most optimal outcome.

For example, the illegal immigration problem is not ultimately a battle of ideology- that is merely how the media has portrayed it. The most important issue is its economic factor- how the altering of the status quo will affect US productivity, and thus its overall standard of living. From a purely economic standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense at all to either criminalize illegal immigrants or to deport them- our most basic industries, especially that of agriculture, is so deeply rooted with the immigration problem that tampering with it so bluntly will cause enormous economic instabilities.

Given how recklessly this administration's squandered away our wealth? This is not the optimal outcome. Under almost anybody else (well, at least, during pre-Reaganomics years and not during the Depression), this wouldn't be as big a problem as it is now. The initial turbulence would smooth itself out so long as we work fast enough to establish an alternate economic foundation- assuming, of course, that we have enough of a credit buffer to work off of. But that's simply something we don't have the luxury of right now- and I'm personally not at all willing to gamble the current state of our economy against this plan. A return to the 1930s is not something I want to experience within my own lifetime.

So what is the optimal outcome? I personally feel that the only way we can make it out of the status quo with the max number of winners is to just plain face the reality of the situation: like it or not, we really, really need those immigrants. Amnesty for all of them is absurdly extreme, but we should at least recognize our own dependency on our dependents. Criminalization or deportation only worsens the situation for everybody.

If you want to serve the American people best, it helps to realize what it takes to keep America running.

Link to comment

Besides. Law, Custom, Morality? All are transient. If the law doesn't serve the Greater Good, it's the law that needs changing, not the violators that needs punishment.

My thoughts exactly.

Transient they may be, but they can't be ignored without creating chaos, death, destruction, mayhem and the like.

here we get to the core issue, the fundamental disagreement. From your statements, I must assume that you believe that the US government should enact laws to serve all people. If I'm wrong, please explain what you mean by Greater Good

I believe that well that might be a good idea, it is currently impractical in some areas (notably regarding terrorists and other groups who wish to cause death destruction and mayhem) and so I have no problem with the US givernment being practical and enacting laws to serve only all American citizens.

But the people trying to kill American citizens came around as a result of policies that only helped American citizens. It's not like Islamic Fundamentalists hate America for no reason at all.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...