We now have MAJOR problems with racial diversity, we have violence and crime which is at an all time high and we have to bend over in order not to offend any immigrants as it may be against their human rights or the PC brigade are up in arms.
The quaint country the rest of the world thinks the UK once was is no longer there. If you ask me the US have got it bang on with wanting tighter immigration controls.
Lixy, you initially raise concerns about a brain drain, don’t you think there’s enough people in the US? Law of averages says that there should be one or two geniuses amongst them! Give them the scolarships instead.[/quote]
Excellent post, very well said. Using the good-heartedness of a people in order to abuse them and milk their system is simply wrong. Flat out immigration is just plain stupid – if someone moves to a country WITH THE INTENT of becoming part of the society, fine. But the kind of stuff you described has to stop.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
huh? I thought the whole world, more or less, was getting more restrictive since the big nine one one. Have things been turning around lately?
Air travel, yes. Immigration and/or naturalization, no.
Of course, you must understand that “the whole world” extends beyond the US, UK and satellites.
[/quote]
Not really. Most of the rest of the world is shitholes, run by and for barbarians.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:
“Doing well financially” is a relative term. And “welfare state” too. One could easily argue both side of the argument. So, let’s not go there.
My point is that countries with more “welfare state” than the US make it much easier for people to move around (see: Schengen States).
But the question is not if other countries are doing it. The question is whether or not it is the best policy. I ocntend policy ranks in the following order:
No welfare state - lax immigration
NO welfare state - restrictive immigration
Welfare state - restrictive immigration
Welfare state - lax immigration[/quote]
Restricting immigration came before welfare state in the history of the USA.
I obviously don’t know what is “the best policy”. It’s not like we could perform a controlled experiment that would enable us to tell either way. We only got this one world and time-travel hasn’t been perfected yet.
I’m talking from a purely ideological standpoint. And it seems to me that limiting the way people move about is inhumane.
[quote]You probably know better than me what the attitudes are. But you’d then have to explain why H-1B visas are still around, green-cards are given based on chance, and the road to citizenship is so sinuous.
Most people don’t know or care about H-1Bs. Public sentament doesn’t always = gov’t policy. [/quote]
Although, usually, “gov’t policy” ends up being ¨public sentament" thanks to spin-doctors.
I present polls that show increasing resistance by the populace for immigration, government policy that restricts the latter, and you keep insisting that your anecdotal evidence is stronger.
[quote]Big corps. have a lot of leverage over Washington. Yet, they are consistently opposed when it comes to the issue of importing qualified labor. The only conclusion I can draw is that there are forces opposing it.
i don’t know why they would be. I don’t have any evidense of specific groups supporting or apposing more efficient legal immigration. [/quote]
The only thing that shows is that you’re not at all interested in the issue.
This is a ridiculous argument. Do you seriously think people would risk their lives and cross the border illegally if they could get in through the main door?
It’s immigration restriction that’s driving up so-called illegal immigration.
[quote]That they weren’t lynched isn’t the issue. It’s all the hoops they had to go through. How many of those would have put up with that if they had alternatives?
Don’t know. All I know is that a large number of them made it here and seem to be prospering. [/quote]
When have they “made it here”? Was it before or after the latest immigration restriction policy? Also, how do you know it’s their arrival on US soil that’s the cause for them “prospering”?
[quote]Not sure. Nationalism is alive and kicking in the US.
And yes, I say that like it’s a bad thing.
Again, I just have not seen public opposition to legal immigration. Maybe I am not paying enough attention. [/quote]
Bingo!
[quote]Neither presidential candidate last year would address that.
Clearly, “the bigger threat” lies elsewhere for the majority of Americans.
It’s just not an issue that is near and dear to the public’s heart. If any congress wanted to streamline legal immigration, I doubt they would get hassled about it. [/quote]
I don’t believe that. They would “get hassled” about foreigners stealing their jobs, etc.
Check the historical record.
You seem sure about what “that doesn’t mean”. I’ll be more interested in hearing what it does mean?
[quote]That, following your logic, Canada would lose more than the US if there were no borders.
lose more what? [/quote]
What do you think?
Welfare money!
[quote]My guess would be that those scholarships make up 0.0001% of what your government spends on “non-citizens”.
I don’t know. I am not talking specifically about scolarships. Universities are subsidized by state and federal tax dollars. They claim they cannot recover the full cost of educating a student from tuition. In an effort to keep tuition low, the gov’t subsidizes them tremendously. I say non-citizens should pay what the school claims is the full cost of educating them. [/quote]
Why? Why should being born here or there affect how much one pays to go to school?
[/quote]It was always the case. The trend in the US today, is to make it harder.
Your opinion seems to be in the minority.
I don’t think so. [/quote]
That it was always the case? (open a history book)
That the immigration policy trend is towards restriction? (check out governmental records)
Or that your opinion is in the minority? (check out polls)
[quote]I don’t blame them. They get discriminated against just because they’re not citizens.
how?
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006.
weak [/quote]
What would considered “strong” in your opinion? Chopping foreigners’ balls off?
[quote]It seemed relevant to point out that your losing the edge when it comes to “science and engineering”. And the obvious solution is not discussed much at the governmental level.
Maybe it’s our education system, not immmigration. [/quote]
Did it ever ponder the possibility that it could be both.
Because many of the most famous “talent” in the USA is imported “talent”?
Not so much “capacity”. It’s about statistics that show Americans are underrepresented in those fields. Call it drive if you will.
[quote]That a country is “more competitive with the US”, doesn’t mean it’s improving.
Agreed. Not sure where that fits into immigration. [/quote]
You made an assertion. I corrected it. You agreed with that, then decide that standard of living, competitiveness and economical growth have nothing to do with immigration.
That’s weird.
[quote]You think human resources are “the least of [y]our worries”? Think again.
Feel free to elaborate.
The human resources were a major driving force for making the US the hyperpower it is today. Immigration law, and how it has evolved, should be up there with the important “worries”.
Again, seems like treating the symtom rather than the cuase. No matter who we import, restrictive gov’t policy will apply to them as well. First we need to get the fed out of the economy, so to speak. Then whoever we let in will be more productive.
I’ll say this again. I don’t you’ll find too muck opposition in steamlining legal immigration for productive resourses. [/quote]
The biggest problem with post-Civil War immigration is that immigrants brought their philosophy of life with them – big government, milking the system, the absurd notion that in a capitalist economy ‘the rich got rich by theft somehow’.
Only northern Europeans, with an understanding of limited government and individualist ethics, should have even been considered for immigration.
Ted Kennedy has a lot to answer for, opening up immigration so Dems can win elections. He is an evil person.
You act like immigrants are owed a certain treatment. No, they’re not. We’ll set our policy, and they’ll try to immigrate, or they won’t. Even after it was pointed out the immigration policy wasn’t even one of the most significant factors, you’re still on this. Did you raise a red flag with homeland security or something? We’re not talking apostacy laws here, or something like that.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Only northern Europeans, with an understanding of limited government and individualist ethics, should have even been considered for immigration.[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You act like immigrants are owed a certain treatment. No, they’re not. We’ll set our policy, and they’ll try to immigrate, or they won’t. [/quote]
I “act like” nothing. I believe that people should be treated the same, and that merely being born somewhere shouldn’t be ground for discrimination.
You and others seem to disagree. I’m trying to understand your line of thinking.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You act like immigrants are owed a certain treatment. No, they’re not. We’ll set our policy, and they’ll try to immigrate, or they won’t.
I “act like” nothing. I believe that people should be treated the same, and that merely being born somewhere shouldn’t be ground for discrimination.
You and others seem to disagree. I’m trying to understand your line of thinking. [/quote]
United States of America. A nation, borders, a people, citizenry. We’re not the Utopian Society of Anarchists. We control who and how many we’ll let in and assimilate. I could swear you’ve busted out the old “when in Rome do as the Romans do” when someone was pointing out the enforcement of morality laws in Iran.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You act like immigrants are owed a certain treatment. No, they’re not. We’ll set our policy, and they’ll try to immigrate, or they won’t.
I “act like” nothing. I believe that people should be treated the same, and that merely being born somewhere shouldn’t be ground for discrimination.
You and others seem to disagree. I’m trying to understand your line of thinking.
United States of America. A nation, borders, a people, citizenry. We’re not the Utopian Society of Anarchists. We control who and how many we’ll let in and assimilate. I could swear you’ve busted out the old “when in Rome do as the Romans do” when someone was pointing out the enforcement of morality laws in Iran.[/quote]
I’m not sure I get your point. The particular “morality laws” thread was demonizing Islam, Persians and it turned into a hate-fest before I jumped in. There were threats of violence coming out of Washington at the time, and the usual suspects were all wet to see Iran turned into a land “where the buffalo roam”. That’s the context in which I brought up “the old “when in Rome do as the Romans do””. If the topic was about the motives and justifications behind those laws, I wouldn’t stick my neck up for Tehran.
In this thread, I’m trying to understand what the rationale behind discriminating against a person based on the arbitrary location of their birth is. So far, I only got Dhickey’s Americans-have-no-problem-with-easier-immigration and yours none-of-your-business-what-the-US-does.
So let me be absolutely clear: I don’t care what you do, who you let in or who you keep out. But I want to understand how anyone can justify that the baby born in location X, has more or less of a right to Y. It’s not in any way restricted to the US.
So let me be absolutely clear: I don’t care what you do, who you let in or who you keep out. But I want to understand how anyone can justify that the baby born in location X, has more or less of a right to Y. It’s not in any way restricted to the US.[/quote]
Because anarchy doesn’t work. Nations were formed. People were citizens of these nations. Nations protect their borders. Nations make sure the newcomer is first, not a threat. Second, that he and all the other newcomers assimilate to the nation, and not the other way around. Third, and related to the second, that the character, norms, and values of the society are maintained. As opposed to an increasing balkanization and abandoment of fundamental and founding principles. Yes, choppy and short. But, I don’t have time to recite the history of the world.
I’m not sure I get your point. The particular “morality laws” thread was demonizing Islam, Persians and it turned into a hate-fest before I jumped in. There were threats of violence coming out of Washington at the time, and the usual suspects were all wet to see Iran turned into a land “where the buffalo roam”. That’s the context in which I brought up “the old “when in Rome do as the Romans do””. If the topic was about the motives and justifications behind those laws, I wouldn’t stick my neck up for Tehran.
[/quote]
Yes, I remember you jumping in. You called the victim of the hanging a slut who played with fire and got burned. And proceeded to deflect criticism of the nation’s policies with the do as the Romans do bit. I guess US immigration policy is serious enough though.
Shouldn’t a patriot like you be more concerned with your own lack of “brain” at home? [/quote]
I am not a patriot. I don’t believe in nation-states.
That said, we got so much “brain”, we’re exporting it.
Nothing “alleged” about it. America is losing its edge in science. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a good thing. That would make US taxpayers question the use of their dollars overseas.
“Hiding”? What are you? Stupid?
Are you “hiding” in Japan?
I fart in your general direction, and in that of every nationalism trumpeting twat.
Besides, my vision of “some use” is probably diametrically opposed to yours.
I don’t need an IMF report (of all things!) to know how “low-tech” schools are in Morocco. Half of the country is illiterate! But I also know that progress in that domain is happening at a frantic pace.
Next time, don’t embarrass yourself by trying to compare the world’s sole hyperpower with a third-world shithole.