Immigration

[P8I.com]

What I find difficult with discussion over immigration is that it's based on the fact that we own bits of the Earth. I don't know where the notion that we have the right to prevent people from living where they want to came from. If they're willing to contribute to our society, I don't see a problem.

If the door to your home is locked, then tells me that you're not very sincere in your beliefs. We don't allow just anybody to enter and lay claim to our home, be it our country or the actual house we live in. If we did, that would be total suicide. The "notion" comes from the fact that people do insidious things, and it's our right to protect ourselves from those people.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

What I find difficult with discussion over immigration is that it's based on the fact that we own bits of the Earth. I don't know where the notion that we have the right to prevent people from living where they want to came from. If they're willing to contribute to our society, I don't see a problem.

If the door to your home is locked, then tells me that you're not very sincere in your beliefs. We don't allow just anybody to enter our home, be it our country or our actual home. The "notion" comes from the fact that people do insidious things, and it's our right to protect ourselves from those people.

The point is that we should allow these people to be our neighbors. The vast majority of immigrants (even illegal immigrants) are perfectly good, law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying people, and there is no reason why we shouldn't allow them to live here. :shrug:

 

[P8I.com]

What I find difficult with discussion over immigration is that it's based on the fact that we own bits of the Earth. I don't know where the notion that we have the right to prevent people from living where they want to came from. If they're willing to contribute to our society, I don't see a problem.

If the door to your home is locked, then tells me that you're not very sincere in your beliefs. We don't allow just anybody to enter our home, be it our country or our actual home. The "notion" comes from the fact that people do insidious things, and it's our right to protect ourselves from those people.

The point is that we should allow these people to be our neighbors. The vast majority of immigrants (even illegal immigrants) are perfectly good, law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying people, and there is no reason why we shouldn't allow them to live here. :shrug:

And we do. We have many legal immigrants; people who respected the law and didn't try and cheat the system. Those are the kinds of people who deserve to live as our neighbor.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

The "law" requires that immigrants know more than the average American about the history of this country to become a citizen. How is that just?

I think that we in the USA (I'm assuming you're American) need to recognize the fact that we are now a bilingual country and stop with the "Anglo-Saxon superiority" motif.

 

[P8I.com]

The "law" requires that immigrants know more than the average American about the history of this country to become a citizen. How is that just?

I think that we in the USA (I'm assuming you're American) need to recognize the fact that we are now a bilingual country and stop with the "Anglo-Saxon superiority" motif.

That's a different subject altogether. An immigrant who doesn't know how to speak the predominate language isn't going to have much success here. That's in any country. Your heart's probably in the right place, but you aren't doing them any favors by de-emphasizing its importance.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

The "law" requires that immigrants know more than the average American about the history of this country to become a citizen. How is that just?

I think that we in the USA (I'm assuming you're American) need to recognize the fact that we are now a bilingual country and stop with the "Anglo-Saxon superiority" motif.

That's a different subject altogether. An immigrant who doesn't know how to speak the predominate language isn't going to have much success here. That's in any country. Your heart's probably in the right place, but you aren't doing them any favors by de-emphasizing its importance.

Who said that I don't think that immigrants should learn English? I think that it's extremely important for immigrants to learn English. However, I think that Spanish should be taught in all our schools along with English because there is simply a need to learn Spanish in North America.

 

[P8I.com]

The "law" requires that immigrants know more than the average American about the history of this country to become a citizen. How is that just?

I think that we in the USA (I'm assuming you're American) need to recognize the fact that we are now a bilingual country and stop with the "Anglo-Saxon superiority" motif.

The benefit of being born here. The same can be said about people born into a wealthy family. Is it fair that the people who didn't have to work harder to get to that same position? Maybe, maybe not. But that's reality. Compared to places like Mexico and Japan, we have very immigrant-friendly policies .

 

[Deleted member 1609]

Compared to places like Mexico and Japan, we have very immigrant-friendly policies .

However, compared to European countries (the best area of the world), we have very strict immigrant policies.

 

[P8I.com]

Compared to places like Mexico and Japan, we have very immigrant-friendly policies .

However, compared to European countries (the best area of the world), we have very strict immigrant policies.

My point is, they don't get anywhere near the amount of criticism that we do, and we're the least strict of the three nations.

Your opinion.

The leaders of Germany, the UK, and France have all come out and in so many words said that "multiculturalism has failed." Again, not my words, theirs. Europe has a serious problem with religious fanatics and extremists, and that's largely due to their immigration policy, and the fact that they allow new immigrants to segregate themselves from the rest of society.

 

[David]

Compared to places like Mexico and Japan, we have very immigrant-friendly policies .

You put on the table the two worst examples possible. Tell me exactly how many people genuinely want to emigrate into Mexico? And Japan takes in many Japanese-ethnic cultured people, so it's hardly a justifiable example to use.

You've got to consider people of Asian descent will more likely emigrate to White-dominated countries, than White descent emigrating to Asian countries.

Anyway, what is your underlying argument that you are debating?

 

[P8I.com]

Compared to places like Mexico and Japan, we have very immigrant-friendly policies .

You put on the table the two worst examples possible. Tell me exactly how many people genuinely want to emigrate into Mexico? And Japan takes in many Japanese-ethnic cultured people, so it's hardly a justifiable example to use.

You've got to consider people of Asian descent will more likely emigrate to White-dominated countries, than White descent emigrating to Asian countries.

Anyway, what is your underlying argument that you are debating?

What does that have to do with anything? The fact that people don't immigrate to Mexico more often doesn't remove them from the conversation on immigration policy. No, Japan's the best example. They're not a monochrome society for no reason.

 

[David]

Compared to places like Mexico and Japan, we have very immigrant-friendly policies .

You put on the table the two worst examples possible. Tell me exactly how many people genuinely want to emigrate into Mexico? And Japan takes in many Japanese-ethnic cultured people, so it's hardly a justifiable example to use.

You've got to consider people of Asian descent will more likely emigrate to White-dominated countries, than White descent emigrating to Asian countries.

Anyway, what is your underlying argument that you are debating?

What does that have to do with anything? The fact that people don't immigrate to Mexico more often doesn't remove them from the conversation on immigration policy. No, Japan's the best example. They're not a monochrome society for no reason.

Of course it removes them from the discussion. You want to compare USA's immigration policy with another country of similar equalities and currently, Mexico is not a good example. Why don't you compare USA with Tonga on your (il)logic? That seems like a fair comparison, eh?

Japan, being a so called "monochrome society" isn't because people are changing their cultures into theirs due to any immigration policy, it's because people are already of that ethnic background, hence move to a place where they either use to live, have family or they fit in. Why else would people naturally want to emigrate into such a society?

Anyway, what is your underlying argument that you are debating?

There seems to be none.

 

[P8I.com]

Compared to places like Mexico and Japan, we have very immigrant-friendly policies .

You put on the table the two worst examples possible. Tell me exactly how many people genuinely want to emigrate into Mexico? And Japan takes in many Japanese-ethnic cultured people, so it's hardly a justifiable example to use.

You've got to consider people of Asian descent will more likely emigrate to White-dominated countries, than White descent emigrating to Asian countries.

Anyway, what is your underlying argument that you are debating?

What does that have to do with anything? The fact that people don't immigrate to Mexico more often doesn't remove them from the conversation on immigration policy. No, Japan's the best example. They're not a monochrome society for no reason.

Japan, being a so called "monochrome society" isn't because people are changing their cultures into theirs due to any immigration policy, it's because people are already of that ethnic background, hence move to a place where they either use to live, have family or they fit in. Why else would people naturally want to emigrate into such a society?

That's false. Despite what you think, there are other people besides Japanese decadents who would like to live in Japan. However, most can't because the immigration policy doesn't allow for it.

And no, Mexico's status doesn't make them incomparable. They're a much better comparison than "Tonga" in fact. Both are industrialized nations who have a very heavy amount traffic back and forth.

 

[David]

That's false. Despite what you think, other people besides Japanese decadents would like to live in Japan. However, most can't because the immigration policy doesn't allow for it.

Ok, could you please answer the question of: "what is your underlying argument that you are debating?". It's hard to make rebuttals when you have no clear line of argument.

Show me the proof/research/trends that people sincerely want to live in Japan of non-Japanese ethnicity nowadays. I'm happy to agree with you that Japan has a strict immigration policy, but it's not comparable with USA because of so many factors such as the form of government, main religion, it's own history, geographical location and current natural disaster issues which have been evident for a long time. These factors affect which countries you can compare with, and the more distant they are, the hard it is to fairly compare them.

Both are industrialized nations who have very heavy amount traffic back and forth.

Mexico is only filled with gangs and drug lords, and people are trying to run to stay alive. I'm not saying it doesn't happen it USA, but that's a decisive factor to show they are not comparable.

 

[P8I.com]

That's false. Despite what you think, other people besides Japanese decadents would like to live in Japan. However, most can't because the immigration policy doesn't allow for it.

Show me the proof/research/trends that people sincerely want to live in Japan of non-Japanese ethnicity nowadays. I'm happy to agree with you that Japan has a strict immigration policy, but it's not comparable with USA because of so many factors such as the form of government, main religion, it's own history, geographical location and current natural disaster issues which have been evident for a long time. These factors affect which countries you can compare with, and the more distant they are, the hard it is to fairly compare them.

Huh? You're a little out of date on this. Japan is no longer the religious society it used to be, so I don't know what you meant by that. Their religion, what's left of it anyways, isn't enough of a factor to prevent foreigners from integrating into their society. The form of government, history, location, and disasters have nothing to do with it. Everything you just said can be said about any nation in the world. It's no secret that countries have their differences. Japan is not alone in that department. And as far as disasters go, we've had our share of those, too. Much more than Japan has.

Since you keep asking: My argument is that America's immigration laws aren't as draconian as some seem to think. Secondly, it's that we have a right to decide who can and can't enter our country, just like a property owner has the right to decide who they want in their home.

 

[David]

Huh? You're a little out of date on this. Japan is no longer the religious society it used to be, so I don't know what you meant by that. Their religion, what's left of it anyways, isn't enough of a factor to prevent foreigners from integrating into their society. The form of government, history, location, and disasters have nothing to do with it. Everything you just said can be said about any nation in the world. It's no secret that countries have their differences. Japan is not alone in that department. And as far as disasters go, we've had our share of those, too. Much more than Japan has.

I was using a hyperbole for religion if you didn't realize. The lack of religion/shinto is a factor in how people emigrate. Do you think a whole bunch of strong Christians or Muslims will emigrate into an atheistic stronghold? Probably not. Form of government is important as that is what determines one's legal rights. Location is vital as that can be a form of trade restriction, job restriction, association of companies, communications, effects of globalisation and so on. Natural disasters are vital as well; it's recent natural disaster will surely affect the minds of people emigrating into Japan. Japan has consistent natural disaster unlike USA on a significant scale. You can't logically deny all of that.

Then you say "Japan is not alone in this department" blindly when I've already stated: "These factors affect which countries you can compare with, and the more distant they are, the hard it is to fairly compare them."

You seriously need to read the whole post before replying; you seem to attach yourself on maybe one or two sentences without reading the whole post and making an illogical argument from that.

Since you keep asking: My argument is that America's immigration laws aren't as draconian as some seem to think. Secondly, it's that we have a right to decide who can and can't enter our country, just like a property owner has the right to decide who they want in their home.

Ok, if they are your arguments then your examples used really don't fit in. If your second point is sincere then you've argued it terribly (no offense) as I somewhat agree with you. I would like to control who enters Australia so detention centres and processing centres are vital. The only downfall is the timing and efficiency rate at which processing is done. There would be a huge difference of opinion if there was efficient timing though.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

The leaders of Germany, the UK, and France have all come out and in so many words said that "multiculturalism has failed." Again, not my words, theirs. Europe has a serious problem with religious fanatics and extremists, and that's largely due to their immigration policy, and the fact that they allow new immigrants to segregate themselves from the rest of society.

Are you trying to tell me that the USA doesn't have a problem with religious fanatics and extremists? Try travelling to Alabama, Mississippi, or Oklahoma and see if you still have that opinion. Of course, no American sees radical Christians as "religious extremists." Also, the UK, France, and Germany have very few immigrants, so their leaders are idiots for saying that (although they would still be idiots even if there were tons of immigrants). France is controlled by a Christian democratic party, the UK is controlled by the Tories, and Germany is also controlled by a Christian Democratic party. Of course conservatives (especially Christian "democrats") are going to say that "multiculturalism has failed." You're being very selective with your evidence. Of course, none of those European parties are as conservative as the Republicans.

 

[Nuke]

Snobo, you're implying these "radical Christians" go around suicide bombing people, blowing up skyscrapers, hijacking airplanes, etc. on a regular basis. Do you realize how stupid that is?

Also in France, aren't there zones where Muslims have overthrown the French regime? They're openly advertising revolution if you're ever seen politics being done on Youtube. It's RIDICULOUS.

 

[alfred01]

I do believe in immigration. I think any person should be allowed to try for a new life in another country if they wish, unless they have a proven legitimate criminal record. Illegal Immigrants, a much tougher topic. Some illegal immigrants are trying to escape an oppressive country where they have no means of getting legitimate immigration papers. Other's can't afford the fee's attached to such application's for immigration. I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

I do believe in immigration. I think any person should be allowed to try for a new life in another country if they wish, unless they have a proven legitimate criminal record. Illegal Immigrants, a much tougher topic. Some illegal immigrants are trying to escape an oppressive country where they have no means of getting legitimate immigration papers. Other's can't afford the fee's attached to such application's for immigration. I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

I think that the United States in particular should be more flexible in granting asylum. It's only granted in about twenty percent of cases.