[skeptik]

For some reason the government allows al-qaeda related material to float around the net, but as soon as someone downloads it they get slapped with the new anti-terror powers of the state. A graduate student named Hicham Yezza from Nottingham university downloaded an al-qaeda training manual for his Masters disertation, and was subsequently nabbed and put in a cell for an arbitrary amount of time. He is now fighting to stay in the country:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... uksecurity

what are people's opinions in fighting this ridiculous policy? obviously state security is a serious issue, but if this is the case, why to the authorities allow this material to float around if they are only going to arrest people for down loading it?

[Dave]

The government's policy can only be called tyranny, although one has to ask why someone named Hicham Yezza is even in the United Kingdom in the first place.

[ingliz]

although one has to ask why someone named Hicham Yezza is even in the United Kingdom in the first place.

Why does one have to ask? One may as well ask why someone named Dave is even in the US in the first place. Your casual racism is appalling.

[Dave]

Because Dave is a Western name? I make no apologies for wishing to preserve historical nations. The mass immigration from non-traditional sources which has taken place in the West endangers the long-term future of our civilization, and the politicians who fomented it are traitors to their own people. It's possible he's simply a foreign student in which case fine, but according to the article and is therefore likely a clerical assistant, and he is then an immigrant or an un-assimilated descendant of immigrants.

[ingliz]

Are you a Jew: You have a Hebrew name? And why don't you piss off back to wherever your immigrant forefathers came from.

[Dave]

"David" is the fourth most common male surname in the United States, and as far as I know is additionally popular throughout the West in general (Tory leader David Cameron...).

Perhaps you think that large-scale immigration presents no threat to the integrity of nations, or perhaps you don't believe that nations have any real value.

I would disagree on both of those points.

[ingliz]

I was just casually stereotyping you by name. David is a Hebrew name - you must be a Yid. Seeing as you are the offspring of immigrants, by your logic, there is nothing unreasonable in asking you to piss off back wherever your immigrant ancestors came from.

[Dave]

David is a hebrew name which became an overall Western name, much in the way Marcus was a Latin name which is now universal to western culture. To my knowledge "Hicham" is not a British given name, and "Yezza" is certainly not a British surname.

[ingliz]

There are British citizens with these names; therefore, "Hicham" is a British given name, and "Yezza" is a British surname.

[Dave]

Citizenship is a legal definition and does not necessarily have correlation with nationality. Britain could if it so chose arbitrarily confer citizenship on the whole of China. To give you an example, in the US only US citizens are allowed to vote at any level (unlike Britain where as I understand domiciled foreigners may vote in council elections), but in California you may cast your ballot in 72 languages, even though the American nation's sole language is English.

[ingliz]

Nationality - citizenship - national status; specifically : a legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state

[Dave]

I completely disagree. A nation is a certain people who share a common culture, language, history, and usually but not always, ethnicity. Most states today are nation-states, since the ultimate political aspiration of any nation is statehood, and some historical states used state power to forge disparate elements over time into a coherent nation (e.g., France). That said we cannot confuse the nation and the state, and should recall that historically many states lorded over multinational empires, and many nations have never achieved statehood.

[ingliz]

A pity you are living in a nation of immigrants who share no common culture, language, history or ethnicity.

[Dave]

All nations are formed by immigrants to begin with. I know of no land were dragon's teeth were sewn to spring a people out of the ground.

The United States has a distinct national culture, language, and history. We, unlike most nations, do not have a dominant ethnicity per se, aside from generalized white European (predominantly but not wholly Northern) with an important black West African element. Fully half the white population traces its origins to before 1776 and nearly all of it to before 1924, and nearly the entire black element to before 1807. The white population has been intermixing over time of course, which is why most Americans can spout off multiple sources of their ethnic origin.

[ingliz]

Native Americans, including Inuits and Aleuts, German, English, Irish, and Italian, Russians, Czechs, Belorussians, Cubans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Hmong, Iranians, Mexicans, the Philippinos, Indians, and Chinese, French, Japanese, Guatemalans, Costa Ricans, Jamaicans etc etc etc etc etc etc

Of the 224 million people reporting their ancestry in the 1990 census, only 13 million, or 6 percent, identified themselves as Americans only.

[Dave]

Native Americans today are the remnants of the previous civilizations who inhabited this continent prior to Europe conquest.

In any case, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Englishmen are ultimately Romans, Normans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Celts, etc. but over a very long period of time forged a nation.

The history of America is, in many ways, the history of forging a nation. Our nation is still new enough that most people can trace their pre-American origins with some accuracy.

[ingliz]

Correct, so if all nations are made up of immigrants and 85% of Americans do not define themselves as Americans why do you think the US even qualifies as a nation under your rules? And if there is no homogeneity why are you playing the immigrant racist card again?

Now if you were honest and "came out of the closet", so to speak, and proclaimed proudly " I am Dave and I'm a racist bastard" I could say "tut, tut there goes that racist bastard Dave again" shake my head and move on. But you insist you love all God's children.

[Dave]

Correct, so if all nations are made up of immigrants and 85% of Americans do not define themselves as Americans why do you think the US even qualifies as a nation under your rules? And if there is no homogeneity why are you playing the immigrant racist card again?

The purpose of the US Census question is to determine national ethnic origins, as can be seen in this map based on the 2000 census map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... County.svg

My own origins are Swedish. The fact that we Americans can trace our ethnic origins does not indicate that we are not a nation, and the only Americans who identify their ethnicity as American are southern rednecks (look at the map). They are likely Scotch-Irish.

If you ask people whether they consider themselves American (instead of what is your ethnicity), then almost all Americans will emphatically respond with yes. Surely you know that patriotism is very important in American life--do you really think patriotism would matter if people did not consider themselves American?

Now if you were honest and "came out of the closet", so to speak, and proclaimed proudly " I am Dave and I'm a racist bastard" I could say "tut, tut there goes that racist bastard Dave again" shake my head and move on.

I have no interest in making false claims about myself. I am a nationalist, not a racist. Feel free to write me off as a "nationalist bastard" if it helps you out.

But you insist you love all God's children.

Correct. This extends to nations, which are collective outgrowths of God's children.

[ingliz]

So which immigrants are you deporting? Mr Yezza had lived in the UK for 13 years and was applying for British citizenship so I assume all those who arrived after 1995, all those who have chosen to remain residents not citizens, all offspring of residents born in the US and US citizens and all those that can't speak English. Have I missed any category of undesirable? Lets have a count 12% of the US population are residents but not citizens, 40 millions approx.and illegal immigrants arrive at a rate of 1.5 million a year. So 13 yrs x 1.5 roughly 20 millions. Cannot speak English fluently 35 millions. Second generation immigrants can't find a number sorry but I think we have enough to be going on with. We can forget all but 6% of non English speakers so call that 2 millions but 2nd generation immigrants are bothering me say the first generation immigrants have produced 2 kids per family, thats 40 millions. So say 105 millions in total. You can reduce the population of the US by a third with your policies.

[Suska]

all very interesting but beside the point. If a student wants to research such things its only information, if its a crime to review such things their source ought to be the focus of any criminal case. I'm thinking that freedom of speech applies, but even if it doesn't certainly such documents should be available to study as the McVeigh manifesto was.