If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
And we go full circle. It's not. It's big crybaby get him a waaaaaamulance.
It is racist reasoning to say that a person's heritage makes them more or less capable of doing their job. If you want to say that Trump isn't racist but uses racist arguments to get his way, then OK, fine, I can settle for benefit of the doubt on that, but that isn't a meaningful distinction.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
It is racist reasoning to say that a person's heritage makes them more or less capable of doing their job. If you want to say that Trump isn't racist but uses racist arguments to get his way, then OK, fine, I can settle for benefit of the doubt on that, but that isn't a meaningful distinction.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says Donald Trump needs to carefully select a running mate to bolster his inexperience, adding that Trump doesn't know much about "the issues."
McConnell made the comments in a podcast with Bloomberg Politics, as he continued to repudiate comments made by Trump about a federal judge.
"He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it's pretty obvious he doesn't know a lot about the issues," McConnell said of a running mate for the mogul.
McConnell said the obvious lack of knowledge is another reason that the Kentucky Republican has pressed the presumptive GOP nominee to use scripts.
"You see that in the debates in which he's participated," McConnell said. "It's why I have argued to him publicly and privately that he ought to use a script more often -- there is nothing wrong with having prepared texts."
The comments were the latest in a string of criticism of Trump from McConnell, who has called Trump's comments about the judge "totally inappropriate."
Trump has faced a firestorm since saying the Indiana-born judge in his Trump University lawsuit may be biased because he has Mexican heritage.
While most of the top members of the Republican Party have called out the comments, they are also sticking by their endorsements of Trump.
McConnell stands by that, but says Trump needs to show improvement.
"I object to a whole series of things that he's said -- vehemently object to them. I think all of that needs to stop. Both the shots at people he defeated in the primary and these attacks on various ethnic groups in the country," McConnell told Bloomberg. "I think he'd have a much better chance of winning if he would quit making so many unfortunate public utterances and stick to the script."
It is racist reasoning to say that a person's heritage makes them more or less capable of doing their job. If you want to say that Trump isn't racist but uses racist arguments to get his way, then OK, fine, I can settle for benefit of the doubt on that, but that isn't a meaningful distinction.
"No one of Mexican heritage is capable of fairly judging me."
That would be racist (and untrue).
"All people of Mexican heritage have it out for me."
That would also be racist (and untrue).
"A particular judge has it out for me because of their heritage."
This is a more nuanced construction. Could it be racist? Sure, but I'm going to need to triangulate it with other statements before I can make an absolute determination.
The other statements I'm being asked to triangulate with are his general positions on immigration, which I maintain are classist. His problem isn't with Mexicans, it's with poor Mexicans doing what he perceives as leeching off our system. The criminal element has relevance because being poor is reason numero uno people become criminals.
^^^ That. People are either terribly confused or they're trying to sling anything and everything at Trump in the hopes it will stick. He's a doofus and an asshole, but the more you try to attach other things to him that he isn't, the more it'll look like a cheap smear tactic.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Let me state for the record I personally feel immigrants of all classes make this country better, and were I in charge, I'd give amnesty to most illegals, and set our Mexico quota at a half-million per year.
So I am in no way with Trump when it comes to immigration.
I think the best argument one can come up with Trump is making hay out of racism is something I've mentioned before...
Cheap labor comes from Mexico. There is not a successful businessman on the planet who doesn't like cheap labor.
Yeah, we need millions of illiterate unskilled ILLEGALS in this country. The Terrorists coming along for the ride will have more targets to blow up.
If I'm letting them in legally, then they aren't illegals anymore.
There are plenty of jobs which do not require literacy. You would rather have literate Americans doing those jobs? Extremely poor use of resources.
As for terrorists, if our immigration policy is just, then there will be the political will to come down hard on those who attempt to circumvent it. Those who do not circumvent it, need to prove to the government's satisfaction they aren't terrorists (or gang members).
That would be far better than what we have now, where a terrorist (or more realistically, a gang member) can just walk in.
Yeah, we need millions of illiterate unskilled ILLEGALS in this country.
How is that different than lower class people who were born here?
You know other than the sense of entitlement and fear of manual labor Americans are naturally born with.
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
^^^ That. People are either terribly confused or they're trying to sling anything and everything at Trump in the hopes it will stick. He's a doofus and an asshole, but the more you try to attach other things to him that he isn't, the more it'll look like a cheap smear tactic.
There's a phenomenon at play here (I'm not throwing stones, I'm certainly guilty of it myself) where one focuses more on the words of a statement as opposed to the intent.
There's a phenomenon at play here (I'm not throwing stones, I'm certainly guilty of it myself) where one focuses more on the words of a statement as opposed to the intent.
By that logic the southern strategy wasn't racist because they didn't actually care about race they just wanted votes.
By that logic the southern strategy wasn't racist because they didn't actually care about race they just wanted votes.
You're focusing on my words over my intent.
Let me put it this way.
You and I get along (I think), so when we communicate, we're on each other's side in terms of our attempts to convey information to each other.
Yet despite this, for whatever reason, what should be simple discussion is often hopelessly ambiguous.
Now consider what the situation would be if we didn't get along. Both of us would be far less inclined to work through the ambiguities, and more inclined towards thinking the other is an idiot... which just happens to reinforce what we thought of each other in the first place.
Even without our specific issues, language is inherently ambiguous enough if one is predisposed to take ill motivation from a statement, it's not particularly difficult to do. It doesn't even require conscious effort because there's been a fundamental breakdown in communication.
None of that is to say ill motivation doesn't exist, you provided an example with the southern strategy. My point is much ill motivation is falsely claimed due to a communication breakdown. This breakdown is also the underpinning of why each "team" conveniently thinks the other has the monopoly on ill motivation.
That's hopefully a better description of what I'm getting at, though I'm not too hopeful considering my record.
Cheap labor comes from Mexico. There is not a successful businessman on the planet who doesn't like cheap labor.
Except for the businesses who supposedly refuse to hire women, despite the "fact" they can pay them 28% less?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The GOP Establishment continues to distance itself from Trump ....
Mitt Romney suggested Friday that Donald Trump's election could legitimize racism and misogyny, ushering in a change in the moral fabric of American society.
The 2012 Republican nominee, who has openly opposed Trump's candidacy, went further than he has before in outlining to CNN's Wolf Blitzer how the country's character would suffer in a Trump White House. Trump's rhetoric has caused even some other Republicans to label him a racist, and Romney said he would not be able to paper over his incendiary remarks.
"I don't want to see trickle-down racism" Romney said in an interview here in a suite overlooking the Wasatch Mountains, where he is hosting his yearly ideas conference. "I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."
@OAW
I've been thinking the exact same thing. But from a different angle. I do see Trump possibly "ushering" racism back into the country; as something to be proud of by the time he's done. But only because the stage has already been set by the left. The left is taking sides with tyrants flying foreign flags screaming "&$@ America!" while leeching all the benefits. The left has taken the side of insanity. The left has been crying wolf for so long with the race card the productive class has become desensitized if not infuriated. The race card is losing it's power, the word racism has already lost its meaning. Asians are calling everyone racist when asked to change their names when entering the country, despite the fact it's what 80% of white immigrants proudly did back in the day. French people are abusing the race card, Russians are abusing it, Spanish, Portuguese, Albanians, religions, Hispanics, everyone wants in on the race card even though they're for the most part 'white'. In desperation the left is bombarding Trump and conservatives with more race cards than any time in history. Trump says eff the race card, and eff everything pc and shows you can get away it.
It's unfortunate because there are people who experience real racism in this country, but their plight will be laughed at trying to stand out in a sea of frivolous accusations by a bunch of spoiled brats on the left.
If I'm letting them in legally, then they aren't illegals anymore.
There are plenty of jobs which do not require literacy. You would rather have literate Americans doing those jobs? Extremely poor use of resources.
As for terrorists, if our immigration policy is just, then there will be the political will to come down hard on those who attempt to circumvent it. Those who do not circumvent it, need to prove to the government's satisfaction they aren't terrorists (or gang members).
That would be far better than what we have now, where a terrorist (or more realistically, a gang member) can just walk in.
Illegal immigration is *only* mutually beneficial, to a country and the people crossing borders illegally, so long as it remains illegal.
I consider myself a libertarian (small 'L'), because i think libertarian policies when applied domestically, benefit everyone. When it comes to international policy there is a valid argument for allowing citizens to determine what the policy aught to be. Personally, I believe in the sovereignty of nations and controlled immigration. (Of course, if you have a substantial illegal population and a flimsy way (at best) of verify voting rights(such as in the US), that distorts the democratic process (specifically in favor of parties which pander to that sort of law breaking).)
Generally speaking, as far as immigration policy(and implementation), I prefer the standards set by countries like Switzerland and Japan (and recently Australian policy as well), as opposed to those of the US, Germany, Sweden or the UK. IMHO
(
Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jun 10, 2016 at 11:13 PM.
)
I watched the video because I like Friedman, and it was only five minutes.
Welfare is for citizens. Legal immigration ≠ automatic citizenship.
Likewise, I'm not arguing for a "set foot on Ellis Island and you're in" system. I'm arguing we raise the quota. We still get to decide who's allowed in.
Generally speaking, as far as immigration policy(and implementation), I prefer the standards set by countries like Switzerland and Japan (and recently Australian policy as well), as opposed to those of the US, Germany, Sweden or the UK. IMHO
Do you actually know what the immigration policies of Japan and Switzerland are? (I'm a German citizen living in Japan married to a Japanese national*). Do you know how hard it is to get a residence permit for the US even in the best case scenario (e. g. for a married couple where one partner is a citizen and the other is from a rich, first-world country)? Hint: it's much, much harder than getting one in Canada, Germany (and the EU at large) — or Japan for that matter. If you make it too hard for people to legally immigrate, you shouldn't be surprised that many of them do so illegally.
* A former American colleague of mine whom I met in Toronto is married to a Japanese citizen. He got a professorship in the US now, but has to live separate from his wife because she is still waiting for her work permit. My (Japanese) wife could enter the EU with a tourist visa and we could ask for her work and residence permit after coming into the country.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Welfare is for citizens. Legal immigration ≠ automatic citizenship.
Yup, the two are not necessarily identical.
Originally Posted by subego
Likewise, I'm not arguing for a "set foot on Ellis Island and you're in" system. I'm arguing we raise the quota. We still get to decide who's allowed in.
If you consciously select the immigrants you want to admit to the country, having controlled immigration is a huge benefit to the country. (And I think America would benefit from making it easier for those who qualify to come. You are losing highly qualified immigrants who have families.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Do you actually know what the immigration policies of Japan and Switzerland are? (I'm a German citizen living in Japan married to a Japanese national*)..
Is it true there are people of Korean ancestry who were born and raised in Japan (several generations) and are not Japanese citizens?
Do you actually know what the immigration policies of Japan and Switzerland are? (I'm a German citizen living in Japan married to a Japanese national*). Do you know how hard it is to get a residence permit for the US even in the best case scenario (e. g. for a married couple where one partner is a citizen and the other is from a rich, first-world country)? Hint: it's much, much harder than getting one in Canada, Germany (and the EU at large) — or Japan for that matter. If you make it too hard for people to legally immigrate, you shouldn't be surprised that many of them do so illegally.
* A former American colleague of mine whom I met in Toronto is married to a Japanese citizen. He got a professorship in the US now, but has to live separate from his wife because she is still waiting for her work permit. My (Japanese) wife could enter the EU with a tourist visa and we could ask for her work and residence permit after coming into the country.
I'm not an immigration lawyer (Are you?). I do know a little about *legal* immigration to a handful of countries (as it would apply to me) as i have lived in a variety of places.
Regarding your comments about US immigration policy, thanks for illustrating my point regarding implementation. I agree, it is too easy on people who break the law and get in illegally(thus encouraging this behavior), and IMHO, time consuming for those who try to do so legally (it does maintain treaties with select countries, which i think is a good way to go). Just so we're clear, if legal immigration is *difficult*(or inconvenient) it means that citizens want to limit immigration as is their right to do so; that doesn't give foreigners, who don't meet the criterion an excuse to break the law. (It would be like someone saying...... I can't afford a Ferrari, so i decided to steal one).
Regarding Switzerland and Japan, I know that they maintain sovereignty of their borders and immigration policies, and actually try to implement it. Switzerland(i think) didn't outsource it's border controls to a dysfunctional, and apparently non-existant policy of the EU (the results of which are available for all to see today).
I think(not sure), the UK managed to politically retain their sovereignty, but seem incapable of implementing it. Australia managed to reclaim their sovereignty, with the implementation of policies(late 2012) which discouraged illegal migration and it worked. I'd like to add Singapore and Israel to the list of Switzerland and Japan, of what i think are *good* immigration systems. Generally speaking, i think the model(policies, implementation) of these "boutique countries" are better than the what the mega-states of the US and EU are doing.
Of course, this is all my opinion, based on my observations and basic(maybe even superficial) understanding of the different policies. (I am more concerned with the outcomes of policies rather than their intentions).
(
Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jun 11, 2016 at 03:49 PM.
)
I watched the video because I like Friedman, and it was only five minutes.
Welfare is for citizens. Legal immigration ≠ automatic citizenship.
Likewise, I'm not arguing for a "set foot on Ellis Island and you're in" system. I'm arguing we raise the quota. We still get to decide who's allowed in.
Hey, i'm not going to transcribe these speeches into walls of text no one will read.
I think that videos from scholars/experts are a better way of communicating whole ideas and it is more entertaining and informative. If my opinions differ, i'll type them out.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
If you consciously select the immigrants you want to admit to the country, having controlled immigration is a huge benefit to the country. (And I think America would benefit from making it easier for those who qualify to come. You are losing highly qualified immigrants who have families.)
Agreed. However IMHO, if a country(any country) decides to limit or even stop immigration, I say it's their choice, based on whatever criterion they see fit.
(
Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jun 11, 2016 at 03:50 PM.
)
Getting here is easy and simply a matter of acquiring a tourist visa of which the only qualification is showing you have at least ~1000 in a bank account. People come on a tourist visa and dont leave. If you can afford a plane ticket you can live in America or drop a baby, it didnt use to be that easy. When they have babies they dont pay the hospitals since they're leaving soon. Immigration policy is set up for people who would game the system. Honest educated working class people have to go through hell to become a citizen.
It's actually a thing for people's life plan to include becoming pregnant early in life, buy a plane ticket, drop an anchor baby in the US, return anywhere from 0-10 years before retirement and live off social security or medicaid while putting next to nothing into the system. I actually see lines of anchor baby moms and elderly in the visitor area at all the major airports. It's easy to see whats going on. Nigeria has businesses who will lend money so moms can get a tourist visa to do this (they're probably not the only ones). The country even has a website Nairaland Forum discussing all the ways to deceive the US immigration and customs.
Another way people can get in is through the walk through checkpoint closest to the Foxcon facility & other manufacturing areas during rush hour. The gates are opened for a flood of people and agents often wave people through without checking passports.
Now there's an excellent point which never occurred to me.
I was taking a shower one day when that hit me like a bolt from the blue, it's only logical.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I don't like people exploiting the loophole, but I don't see much other choice. What would be a just alternate system to birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship where at least one of the parents is already a citizen or legal resident.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Birthright citizenship where at least one of the parents is already a citizen or legal resident.
Agreed.
If illegal, what should happen? What citizenship does the baby get? Should it be stateless? What if there is no documentation(which is usually the case)?
Example of what was happening in Oz:
In Australia, at the height of the illegal boat arrivals, the illegals were destroying their documents enroute (many were pregnant women), and then making up stories to get asylum. Where would they be deported to? Indonesia, where the boats set out from, was not accepting them back.
Is it true there are people of Korean ancestry who were born and raised in Japan (several generations) and are not Japanese citizens?
Yes. And they are effectively barred from many professions such as becoming teachers. In many cases, they don't even speak Korean anymore. I've heard of parents checking the ancestry of their child's future spouse. Japanese have a very keen sense of what they think of being Japanese means, and if you don't fit the mold, you can run into trouble. My wife (who took my name) was asked at every single job interview whether she was a “hafu” (half, meaning half-Japanese, half-foreign). Even Japanese who lived abroad for “too long” have trouble finding jobs, because the prospective employer fears he or she “can no longer fit in”. Their immigration law and its implementation reflects this attitude.
(As an aside I have been treated well here, my Japanese family has no reservations about me not being Japanese.)
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
I'm not an immigration lawyer (Are you?). I do know a little about *legal* immigration to a handful of countries (as it would apply to me) as i have lived in a variety of places.
I am not a legal expert either, but due to personal experience and the line of work I'm in (academia), immigration laws are a staple of mine. I've lived in four countries on multiple occasions (e. g. this is my third time in Japan). The most sane (and positive) immigration policies I have experienced are those in Canada, followed by, surprise, Germany (and probably I'm only saying that because my wife is from a first-world country and I'm rather privileged myself). Before 9/11, the US's was great, I just needed to send in a 2- or 3-page form and my passport to get a 1-year visa. Post 9/11 it has become a bureaucratic nightmare (I did it once afterwards) even though it was clear from the start I'd get my visa. It's a great time for immigration lawyers.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
Just so we're clear, if legal immigration is *difficult*(or inconvenient) it means that citizens want to limit immigration as is their right to do so; that doesn't give foreigners, who don't meet the criterion an excuse to break the law.
I think you are thinking about this backwards: if you follow the political debate in the US on immigration, all the focus is on making things “more difficult” (which in most cases just means more and longer paperwork but with the same end result), most people don't realize how difficult it actually is. When I hear them say that getting asylum in the US should be more difficult, most don't know that even with the rules in place right now, this is a multi-year process. I'm lucky, getting a visa for people like me or my friend (who are from first-world countries with above average salaried jobs) is just a matter of doing the paper work and waiting the wait. It's not a question of if, but when. Adding layers or red tape doesn't make anyone safer, that is a waste of human resources, resources that could be spent in other ways. But imagine how much worse things are for people from other countries. Of course, the American people can determine their own immigration policies, but (1) they shouldn't pretend they're still a melting pot attracting immigrants left and right. And (2) that it's too easy to get into the US.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
Switzerland(i think) didn't outsource it's border controls to a dysfunctional, and apparently non-existant policy of the EU (the results of which are available for all to see today).
That's false, Switzerland joined the Schengen Treaty in 2008 which means there are no systematic checks at the border between Switzerland and the EU.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
I'd like to add Singapore and Israel to the list of Switzerland and Japan, of what i think are *good* immigration systems. Generally speaking, i think the model(policies, implementation) of these "boutique countries" are better than the what the mega-states of the US and EU are doing.
These countries have vastly different bases for immigration: most European countries, Japan and Israel all follow jus sanguinis to determine citizenship (in case of Israel, this is a bit more indirect via being Jewish, but not necessarily being the child of at least one Israeli parent). Contrast this to classical countries of immigration such as Canada, Brazil, Mexico and the United States where people have a right to citizenship if they are born in that country (jus soli). Note that in Europe many countries are opening up citizenship as they have large groups of immigrants that have lived in that country for several generations (also a consequence of much greater movement between European countries as well as the connections to former colonies for some countries).
In Japan, for example, getting citizenship if you are not born to at least one Japanese parent is exceedingly difficult. Yet you lump it in with Israel whose Law of Return makes it rather easy to get citizenship (provided you have sufficient Jewish ancestry). Japan is also an island country with clear borders while in Europe this is absent (apart from the UK and Ireland, of course). Nevertheless, even Japan is opening up — very slowly — because they are running out of workers and their isolationism has significantly contributed to the slumping Japanese economy. In conclusion, I'm not sure what similarities you see in the immigration policies of these countries, or what the US can learn from them.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
Of course, this is all my opinion, based on my observations and basic(maybe even superficial) understanding of the different policies. (I am more concerned with the outcomes of policies rather than their intentions).
With respect, but I have the impression that you really do just have a superficial understanding of immigration policies (inside the US and for other countries as well). Your last sentence seems very pragmatic — yet that is not reflected at all in the policies you seem to support in this thread. Being pragmatic means accepting that there are ~11 million undocumented immigrants in the US, and accepting you won't be able to move most of them out of the country. Many have American children. Throwing more byzantine bureaucracy in their way doesn't help anyone, no matter what your stance on immigration is, it just preserves the status quo.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Agreed. However IMHO, if a country(any country) decides to limit or even stop immigration, I say it's their choice, based on whatever criterion they see fit.
That's not an argument for anything. And it ignores the important difference between law and reality: no matter what sanctions Congress imposes, America will not be able to get rid of 11~14 million undocumented immigrants. It's like claiming “Mexico will pay for the wall” — perhaps it makes some people feel good, but that doesn't mean there is a snowball's chance in hell this will actually happen.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I can't deport an infant. That's some cold shit right there.
I'm not criticizing you for it. It may objectively be the correct course of action, but I can't personally go there.
Plus, that'd leave many people stateless through no fault of their own. This way, the number of undocumented people just grows, and the problem grows worse.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
@OreoCookie
You're personal circumstances are inconsequential and irrelevant to the discussion. The merit of an Immigration system isn't based on how easy or difficult it makes it for people in your circumstances(or mine or anyone else's) to get what they want.
IMO, The way to judge an immigration system is how closely it reflects the desires of the citizens of the country and how well it is implemented (that includes deterring illegal immigration). The level of difficulty is merely a reflection of what a specific society wants, and they are entitled to determine what it is. Further more, it isn't and shouldn't be up to foreigners(least of all law breakers) and non-citizens to determine what the system is.
It seems like you're understanding of immigration is just as superficial as mine (if not more). Granted I wasnt aware of the changes in Switzerland's circumstances as I haven't been there for many years. However, I will say, that i think Switzerland gave up something they shouldnt have. So Switzerland is off my list.
Regarding Israel, Japan.... my preference of those immigration systems is based on the fact that they reflect those particular society's desires. NOT the number of immigrants they accept/deny or how easy/difficult it is. Another reason i prefer/admire their systems is because they take into account the "particularity" of their societies, and so serve to conserve their cultures.
Regarding your latter statement about the ~11 million illegal immigrants. You haven't made any argument at all. All you seem to say is that any deterrence policy is futile, so there's no point trying. In the US there is a customs and borders regime, there is immigration law, and there are millions of people who have knowingly violated that law. An argument that any proposal is "futile" or "wont work" is pretty much BS, it is up to government agencies to enforce the law period (not what a minor fringe element of society wants).
EXAMPLE:
In Australia, between 2007-2012, the Labour government(and the looney Greens) were refusing to control the borders arguing that the coastline was too vast, and that "push" factors were driving the illegal maritime arrivals, and no matter what the government in Australia do, it wouldnt have any results. Come election time in late 2012, the frustrations of the electorate were showing, and *policies* were introduced(and enforced by the government), which lead to illegal arrivals dropping to near 0. So an argument that border controls dont/wont work is a fairytale as far as i'm concerned.
I can tell you one thing for sure, if illegal immigrants(anywhere in the world) are "rewarded" (with PR/citizenship) that would exasperate the problem of breaking the law by encouraging others to do so, as they have something(a lot) to gain and nothing to loose.
Are the current porous borders with Mexio what American citizens want? I doubt it. Is it the duty of government to *TRY* to do something about it? I think so. The same goes for Europe, and seeing as how ineffective they have been there, i hope(and pray) that the UK leaves that clusterf*ck of an experiment.
As I implied earlier, you give amnesty as part of a program to make our immigration policy just.
Once we have a just system, we have the moral authority to be quite vicious towards those who violate our policy.
The amnesty program would happen once, only once, and would be after the border's been secured.
If you think your immigration policy is unjust, you have a political process in which you can vote your preferences to change it as you see fit.
The law is what it is. Your system has a duty to be "vicious" and uncompromising (unless the law has some ambiguities built in to it?) to those who break the law. That is the contract between a judicial system and the people(citizens) it serves.
*If* amnesty is granted, it wouldn't be the first time (nor the last IMO).
If the citizenry of a country decide they don't want immigrants, or only want certain immigrants, then that's their choice. No one outside that country has any right to simply move in. In fact, I find it interesting that many of the more "progressive" countries are much more concerned with invasive animal species than they are invasive cultures and ideologies.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You're personal circumstances are inconsequential and irrelevant to the discussion. The merit of an Immigration system isn't based on how easy or difficult it makes it for people in your circumstances(or mine or anyone else's) to get what they want.
My point is that I have quite a bit of first-hand experience with immigration laws of several, quite different countries. Do you? And I'm not talking about “I visited this country once while on vacation.”, I'm asking whether you have lived in other countries for a prolonged period of time?
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
IMO, The way to judge an immigration system is how closely it reflects the desires of the citizens of the country and how well it is implemented (that includes deterring illegal immigration). The level of difficulty is merely a reflection of what a specific society wants, and they are entitled to determine what it is.
Yes, but how do you know that the majority of the population in the countries you did not mention are against their respective current immigration laws? You did not mention Canada whose open immigration laws in my experience are a point of pride. You just picked those countries that “seemed to have closed borders”.
And how closely does current immigration law really reflect public opinion in the US? Congress has tried numerous times over the year to overhaul immigration policies, so in the US there is no agreement on what to do — Congress is gridlocked.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
Further more, it isn't and shouldn't be up to foreigners(least of all law breakers) and non-citizens to determine what the system is.
You are implying that law and reality are the same thing: you can make any sort of laws, but realistically you will have to accept millions of undocumented immigrants. Just like people kept on drinking during prohibition. In view of the 14th Amendment, there is no way to get rid of anchor babies either — well, nothing short of a constitutional amendment.
So you can either be dogmatic (which you seem to be) or pragmatic and make the best out of the situation. Not creating a path to work permits and citizenship just prolongs the current untenable situation where certain businesses already depend on super cheap labor but with none of the rights. And of course, they can't pay taxes either right now, so they can't contribute to the upkeep of social services and such.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
Regarding Israel, Japan.... my preference of those immigration systems is based on the fact that they reflect those particular society's desires. NOT the number of immigrants they accept/deny or how easy/difficult it is. Another reason i prefer/admire their systems is because they take into account the "particularity" of their societies, and so serve to conserve their cultures.
How do you know whether these laws accurately reflect “What the people think.”? And what do you want to take from them? Japan is probably the most culturally homogenous society I have experienced. And Israel's glue is its culture, although if you go there, it's very multicultural, and different groups of immigrants have very different attitudes. But in both cases, it's actually much easier to get a work permit than for the US (provided you have a job). So what is it exactly that you think the US should learn from these examples?
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
All you seem to say is that any deterrence policy is futile, so there's no point trying. In the US there is a customs and borders regime, there is immigration law, and there are millions of people who have knowingly violated that law. An argument that any proposal is "futile" or "wont work" is pretty much BS, it is up to government agencies to enforce the law period (not what a minor fringe element of society wants).
No, that's not what I said, it's what you extrapolate from it. I'm against unenforceable laws, against laws which are cosmetics, against laws which do nothing to improve the situation. What is worst, none of these laws concern the incentives of why people want to emigrate their country and immigrate to another (say, the EU or the US). Emigrating is a huge step, and people don't take this decision willy-nilly. And as soon as people are willing to cross the Mediterranean on a little dingy, to literally risk their own lives and that of their children, no law will deter them. If you put yourself in their shoes and you'd be willing to do the same thing, then you know that you have no practical argument left. That is the biggest failure of European immigration policy, for instance, the EU neglected to try and improve the welfare of the neighboring, North African states. (The EU did quite well after the wall fell, they quietly gave hundreds of millions of Euros to countries like Romania and Bulgaria to slow down the influx of immigrants.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Your system has a duty to be "vicious" and uncompromising (unless the law has some ambiguities built in to it?) to those who break the law. That is the contract between a judicial system and the people(citizens) it serves.
*If* amnesty is granted, it wouldn't be the first time (nor the last IMO).
Law does not have to be vicious and uncompromising. Usually, uncompromising laws that leave no leeway in their application tend to be unjust (think of superlong mandatory minimum sentences). No, laws should not be uncompromising, they should give the judiciary the ability to dispense justice.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
@OreoCookie
I'm not going to divulge the list of countries i've *lived* and *worked* in. But I will say that, no European country is on my list.
I did read your wall of text, and quite frankly it's your opinion. As far as what Japanese/Israeli/American people want, i consider reflected in their laws for immigration. How do i know? They're democratic societies FFS.
I will address you'r last paragraph regarding the Mediterranean, which i take issue with. And which i think exposes you to belong to the imaginary fringe of immigration politics.
If the number of people breaking the law is very high, the problem isnt the law, its the people who are breaking it.
I have given you recent-real-world proof of an effective and successful deterrence policy working, and your rebuttal is the same BS the Australian public got from the "left". You need to update your fact sheet. So could you please address how the Australians managed to do what you still say is not possible?
PS>> Given the political upheaval and resurgence of the far-right in Europe, something tells me, the dictatorial policies of the German chancellor isn't want the public wants or expects. Go figure.
PPS>>I think you've made your position clear, as have I, and there's nothing more to discuss.
(
Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jun 13, 2016 at 08:35 AM.
)
Is anyone even remotely surprised to hear this coming from the "Birther-In-Chief"?
Donald Trump waded into the fever swamps on Monday, suggesting in two interviews that President Obama may have a secret agenda that prevents him from combating Islamic terrorists.
The comments added to a long list of conspiracy theories from the presumptive GOP nominee about the president's religion, birthplace and worldview. They also sent a clear message to Republicans who have begged Trump to soften his rhetoric that he's not changing his ways anytime soon.
"Well, there are a lot of people that think maybe he doesn't want to get it," Trump told NBC's "TODAY" on Monday while discussing the attack that killed at least 49 people at a gay club in Orlando over the weekend. "A lot of people think maybe he doesn't want to know about it. I happen to think that he just doesn't know what he's doing. But there are many people that think maybe he doesn't want to get it. He doesn't want to see what's really happening."
The comments came shortly after another interview with Fox News in which Trump insinuated that Obama might be turning a blind eye to terrorism for shadowy reasons.
"He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands," Trump said. "It's one or the other, and neither one is acceptable."
In the same interview he warned that "there's something going on" that explains Obama's refusal to use the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism."
After spending last week fending off questions about Trump's comments on a federal judge's "Mexican heritage," GOP officials can now look forward to a week of questions about Trump's innuendo about Obama as well as his renewed call for a ban on Muslim travel, a proposal that Republican leaders have condemned in the past.
Trump voiced similar suspicions about the president -- who has overseen continuous military operations targeting terrorist groups in multiple countries throughout his presidency -- after an attack by a radicalized couple in San Bernardino last year that killed 14 people.
In a speech on December 3 to the Republican Jewish Coalition, Trump suggested Obama did not characterize ISIS attacks as "radical Islamic terrorism" because of secret motives hidden from the public.
"I'll tell you what, we have a president that refuses to use the term, he refuses to say it," Trump said. "There's something going on with him that we don't know about."
Obama has addressed his discomfort with the term in the past, telling reporters he believes it plays into propaganda by Islamic terrorist groups that they are legitimate religious organizations.
"We are not at war with Islam," Obama said in February. "We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."
Top