immigration topic

[Trev]

itt: "IMMIGRANTS DESTROY EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T WHITE!" masked as concerns about culture

I really don't care that much about illegal immigrants considering they pick up a huge portion of labor that goes unperformed in America, specifically farming.. Should we get rid of violent ones or those who commit crimes? Absolutely, they're violent and criminals. Should we get rid of illegal immigrants who aren't violent or criminals? Nope. If they aren't harming me, why should I go after them? I don't understand people's obsession with getting rid of people who come here because they're trying to escape violence, harm, or death in their home country.

Personally, I've been hurt more by people born here than people who have immigrated here.

 

[Midnight Umbreon]

Wow lol all I had to do was say I had a solution, and I sparked all that crap. seriously though, if we make their children that we "Rip out of their parents arms" so disgustingly white EG: the little mexican girl in Spanglish. she only has a to tolerant mother otherwise real Mexicans would be truly disgusted we could make them not want to come here. or we could get serious and shoot to kill if they didn't go through the immigration process. Honestly if we made america seem worse to the Mexicans than Mexico this wouldn't even be a "problem". Now addressing them running away, we find out why they are running. sure Mexico seems bad, but it is like... Russia. Have you ever been to russia? maybe, but when one imagines Russia they see little hovel like buildings and everyone has frostbite. Moscow is a city just like NY. never been to russia, but I seen it in tha movies. so, does our imagination make Mexico seem worse than it is? also it could totally be that Mexicans don't want us there so they make it sound bad so no one goes there. :()

 

[Ninetales]

I see no issue with immigration. However, I do think it needs to be somewhat restricted further. Background checks are a must, things such as an ability to speak the language of the nation in which one is moving to, education level, etc should be taken into consideration.

I'm all for immigrants coming in from war-torn or poor countries who are seeking asylum (The number of asylum seekers should be properly regulated though.) Also, I believe that these immigrants should at the very least know some of the basic language skills necessary. Furthermore, governments perhaps should invest in educating these individuals on the societal and cultural traditions in that given to society to help with assimilation. By no means am I suggesting that immigrants should abandon their own cultures and traditions, however, they should still attempt to adhere to the cultural expectations of their new homeland. (It's quite unrealistic to demand immigrants to completely forget their own beliefs and cultural practices. What's important is finding balance.)

It's undeniable that immigrants historically have contributed so much to society and continue to do so. Being a Canadian, I live in a country established by English and French colonists hundreds of years ago, and I also live in a country that receives the most immigrants per capita in the world. Immigration has been occurring for thousands of years. Whether it's been Chinese immigrants flocking to various countries in south Asia or Europeans colonialists landing on the shores of the Americas, immigration isn't a new or foreign concept. Like anything, it needs to occur in moderation, it needs to be regulated.

 

[Trev]

It is moderated, has been for years, and the process is very long. It includes a background check. The naturalization process includes a language requirement and civics test (and most immigrants have a general understanding of English anyway as most education systems teach it starting in elementary school).

The main issue with some of the things you're suggesting to add to immigration is that they are really not feasible requirements for people to meet unless they have a lot of time to prepare. This is usually not the case. There can be a plethora of reasons behind someone choosing to leave their home country, and not all of them are time-permitting enough for someone to plan on meeting them. If you've lived in your country your whole life and planned on never leaving, then suddenly have to leave because of a threat to your safety (for example), then how are you going to polish up your English and read up on U.S. History while you're trying to keep yourself and potentially your whole family safe? It's not a realistic goal to achieve unless we set the bar low enough to achieve by people at varying skill levels from proficient to none, and by then it's just pointless. Having these elements as part of a naturalization process are much more effective and keeps immigrants safer imo.

Also, no, we shouldn't limit the number of asylum seekers. The point of asylum is to protect people fleeing violence. Slapping a limit on that sends people right back into the violence they were fleeing. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

Again, my stance on immigration is pretty lax, so take that all with a grain of salt. I just don't see the need to so heavily restrict a process that is already heavily restricted.

 

[Ninetales]

It is moderated, has been for years, and the process is very long. It includes a background check. The naturalization process includes a language requirement and civics test (and most immigrants have a general understanding of English anyway as most education systems teach it starting in elementary school).

The main issue with some of the things you're suggesting to add to immigration is that they are really not feasible requirements for people to meet unless they have a lot of time to prepare. This is usually not the case. There can be a plethora of reasons behind someone choosing to leave their home country, and not all of them are time-permitting enough for someone to plan on meeting them. If you've lived in your country your whole life and planned on never leaving, then suddenly have to leave because of a threat to your safety (for example), then how are you going to polish up your English and read up on U.S. History while you're trying to keep yourself and potentially your whole family safe? It's not a realistic goal to achieve unless we set the bar low enough to achieve by people at varying skill levels from proficient to none, and by then it's just pointless. Having these elements as part of a naturalization process are much more effective and keeps immigrants safer imo.

Also, no, we shouldn't limit the number of asylum seekers. The point of asylum is to protect people fleeing violence. Slapping a limit on that sends people right back into the violence they were fleeing. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

Again, my stance on immigration is pretty lax, so take that all with a grain of salt. I just don't see the need to so heavily restrict a process that is already heavily restricted.

The number of asylum seekers absolutely should be regulated in my opinion. Here's the reality, you simply cannot provide aid and financial support to every refugee as it gets extremely costly. Government's have limited budgets for that sort of thing. This often brings about controversy as it's been reported that some countries provide more aid to asylum seekers than to the native people themselves. However, I can understand where you're coming from. I do believe that everyone deserves to live in an environment where they feel safe and comfortable. It's truly disheartening that violence and hatred are so prominent in our world. That being said, at some point, the issues that are occurring in these nations with many emigrants need to be addressed. Also, I hate to say it, but no country is technically obligated to take in asylum seekers. Yes, clearly, from a humanistic perspective, we are wholeheartedly required to help other individuals out. Politically, though, there is no obligation, especially in many non-Western countries including Japan. Even eastern Europe has a history of denying refugees. Not saying this is right or justified, it's just how it is.

It's evident that mass immigration to any particular region in the world often results in tension between the newcomers and those indigenous to that given area. (Take Europe for example, many Europeans have become incredibly hostile towards immigrants, especially those from Muslim-majority countries.) Moreover, while you have a very valid point regarding how certain Asylum seekers in desperate situations may not have an opportunity to learn a language, I still argue that language is a key element in terms of functioning in society. Without the ability to understand or communicate, how is one supposed to contribute to society? Obviously a language can be learned, but it takes time. (Trust me I know, I'm currently learning a second language myself.)

 

[gimmepie]

Wow lol all I had to do was say I had a solution, and I sparked all that crap. seriously though, if we make their children that we "Rip out of their parents arms" so disgustingly white EG: the little mexican girl in Spanglish. she only has a to tolerant mother otherwise real Mexicans would be truly disgusted we could make them not want to come here.

This sentence is extremely disjointed and I have no idea what you mean.

or we could get serious and shoot to kill if they didn't go through the immigration process.

So, fleeing dangerous situations is now grounds for immediate execution? I am beyond thankful the chances of you being in politics are not high.

Honestly if we made america seem worse to the Mexicans than Mexico this wouldn't even be a "problem". Now addressing them running away, we find out why they are running. sure Mexico seems bad, but it is like... Russia. Have you ever been to russia? maybe, but when one imagines Russia they see little hovel like buildings and everyone has frostbite. Moscow is a city just like NY. never been to russia, but I seen it in tha movies. so, does our imagination make Mexico seem worse than it is? also it could totally be that Mexicans don't want us there so they make it sound bad so no one goes there. :()

Well, there's a lot of terrible things about the US already, but you'd be hard pressed to make yourself look worse than Mexico. Mexico is a country that is essentially run by drug cartels and other criminal groups, there's a lot of government corruption and even the US' rampant gun violence doesn't compare to the state of many Mexican cities. This is just Mexico too, a lot of immigrants are coming from even worse places further south. On top of that, they do have access to the media... most of which is produced in the US... which will obviously paint the US in a very positive light. Even ignoring that immigration isn't really a problem unless you're a nationalist, racist or some combination thereof, that strategy would never work.

Now, your last point, that's completely ludicrous. No country in the history of ever has tried to make themselves seem worse to keep people out. That would cause crazy amounts of damage to any countries economy, even ones that don't rely heavily on tourism. That's the sort of conspiracy theory that I'd expect to hear from a drunken Roseanne Barr.

 

[Midnight Umbreon]

So, fleeing dangerous situations is now grounds for immediate execution? I am beyond thankful the chances of you being in politics are not high.

Not... necessarily. So we give them around two months to either leave the country OR become legal citizens of america. Seriously most of the illegals aren't even fleeing something bad, they just want lives that they don't have to work for. Also, how old do you think I am?? no chance at politics look at yourself, your a nerd on a pokemon forum who has this "vast knowledge of politics" why don't you just be some government official of wherever you live?

 

[gimmepie]

Not... necessarily. So we give them around two months to either leave the country OR become legal citizens of america. Seriously most of the illegals aren't even fleeing something bad, they just want lives that they don't have to work for. Also, how old do you think I am?? no chance at politics look at yourself, your a nerd on a pokemon forum who has this "vast knowledge of politics" why don't you just be some government official of wherever you live?

Okay but you do realise that only one type of green card has any hope of being processed within two months and even then they can routinely go over. Other green card types can take as long as four years to obtain in the current system. "Most illegals aren't fleeing anything bad" - no you're right they must be going to the US to live off of your famed wellfare system (the one that is known the world over for how bad it is) and all the crime, corruption and violence they're fleeing from is totally not a big deal.

At what point did I say you didn't have the capacity to become a politician if you wanted? I said the chances aren't high that you will go into politics or have already done so. They're not, it' not that popular a career path. As for why I haven't gone into politics, right now I'm physically unable to do much of anything but before that it was simply because as interesting as I find political theory I have little desire to deal with most of the idiots who do take that path when there's other fields I enjoy a lot more. I don't really care how old you are. I'm more concerned with how serious your misconceptions are.

 

[Enpatsu Shakugan]

No need for insults like that.

To be honest, I find you both very naive on this matter. :/

 

[Midnight Umbreon]

No need for insults like that.

To be honest, I find you both very naive on this matter. :/

To be fair, I am only playing devil's advocate here. I just want to see how much I can make him type over the things I say. And to be fair on my part I'm 13 so... Lol

 

[Trev]

The number of asylum seekers absolutely should be regulated in my opinion. Here's the reality, you simply cannot provide aid and financial support to every refugee as it gets extremely costly. Government's have limited budgets for that sort of thing. This often brings about controversy as it's been reported that some countries provide more aid to asylum seekers than to the native people themselves.

Source please.

However, I can understand where you're coming from. I do believe that everyone deserves to live in an environment where they feel safe and comfortable. It's truly disheartening that violence and hatred are so prominent in our world. That being said, at some point, the issues that are occurring in these nations with many emigrants need to be addressed.

Well, for one, they usually are being addressed (there are exceptions to this obvi). For two, even if they aren't being addressed, that has zero bearing on a country's ability to provide asylum. We shouldn't be basing our desire to help victims of violence off whether the people responsible for fixing their country are actually fixing their country. These people still need help.

Also, I hate to say it, but no country is technically obligated to take in asylum seekers. Yes, clearly, from a humanistic perspective, we are wholeheartedly required to help other individuals out. Politically, though, there is no obligation, especially in many non-Western countries including Japan. Even eastern Europe has a history of denying refugees. Not saying this is right or justified, it's just how it is.

I'm the type of person that doesn't give a shit about whether something can be done politically. If a country rejects asylum seekers for political reasons, I lose a lot of respect for that country.

It's evident that mass immigration to any particular region in the world often results in tension between the newcomers and those indigenous to that given area. (Take Europe for example, many Europeans have become incredibly hostile towards immigrants, especially those from Muslim-majority countries.)

Yes, but that's the fault of the native people being hostile towards people they probably didn't like to begin with. The responsibility of fixing that doesn't fall on immigrants.

Moreover, while you have a very valid point regarding how certain Asylum seekers in desperate situations may not have an opportunity to learn a language, I still argue that language is a key element in terms of functioning in society. Without the ability to understand or communicate, how is one supposed to contribute to society? Obviously a language can be learned, but it takes time. (Trust me I know, I'm currently learning a second language myself.)

Yes, I've also taken Spanish in high school. Obviously knowing a native language is important but again, it's shouldn't be a hard-set requirement for immigration. It should be part of the naturalization process so that people are able to learn it safely and without harm.

What happens if you mix every color in the rainbow together? You end up with an indistinguishable dark sludge that doesn't resemble any color. The same is true of cultures. Cultures are defined by their differences; if you mix them together, you just end up with a dumbed down corporate monoculture where everyone is the same.
So yes, too much multiculturalism is a bad thing because the end result isn't diversity at all, but a bland hegemony with no real cultural identity.

Yes, because that's how things work. Mixing in tons of cultures only makes one normal, boring culture. It won't form new cultures or cultural intersections - just one boring old culture.

Cultural differences are important, but your claim flies in the evidence of literally so many elements of culture in the U.S. The intersections of American and non-American foods alone disproves this entire claim, not to mention the integration of phrases from other languages in the American vernacular. Hell, twerking is African in origin and for a while it was a huge cultural phenomenon (and before you say you don't care about twerking, just know that I'm using it as an example to prove a point). Mixing culture is literally integral to the formation of culture itself.

To be fair, I am only playing devil's advocate here. I just want to see how much I can make him type over the things I say. And to be fair on my part I'm 13 so... Lol

I think you mean devil's provocateur.

 

[Vragon2.0]

Yes, but that's the fault of the native people being hostile towards people they probably didn't like to begin with. The responsibility of fixing that doesn't fall on immigrants.

Woah there buddy, that's a bit presumptuous thing to say. Now before you say, "they show it", I'd say, "this is a response that has always happened with massive immigrations happening at a time."

See the Irish, Italians in the 1900s or for a different continent example, Greece with the Refugees currently.

That's not proof they would have done it anyways even if it wasn't due to a massive amounts going in. Is it possible, yes, but highly improbable. I doubt that the amount coming in and the hysteria going on as a result, isn't an important reason to that if not the major reason for it.

And now for my opinion to be thrown into the bonfire of the burning building.

Since apparently this hasn't been brought up, I think this a good time for me to put this out. I think giving money and whatnot for refugees is a good thing, I think that helping people getting out of these countries that are harming them is good. I'd want these to succeed. Here's the kicker, I want it to work, without it being forced upon the populace.

By that I mean, "Government shouldn't have the power to do that." They shouldn't have the power to get the money of the populace to spend on such things, since,
1) it can easily be abused
2) there are relief efforts out there that currently are helping.
Example 1
example 2
Before you say these are invalid or don't work, this is only to show some exist. Perfection isn't really existent for us right now.
3) When a right has been taken away it's very hard if ney impossible to get it back. You wonder, why so many peeps are against constitutional changes or other things, cause how freaking difficult it is to get such rights and things back for the populace at large.

Now I'm not saying that this is justification for people not to help. I'm saying that you cannot force someone to aid without meeting heavy resistance. If you think everyone that is going against the illegal stuff is a racist or against immigration, I'm sorry, but sit down. I have a problem with people that deny what immigration does for us to. It's is a great thing for countries like America, Canada and others, but it needs to be analyzed for a proper course of action to take place.

I will say if your only argument to getting doctrines that force people is that "well they don't need it" then perhaps you should look over some things. A lot of the class stuff got to where they were cause of the industrial part and the standard of living improving with the west.

I don't hate immigration. I want it to work, which is why I think policy needs to make immigrating legally easier and some assimilation would be ideal, like what Ninetails said. How much assimilation? Well that's up for debate.

If you think people saying, "you can't force them to do this" means they support not doing this, take a chill pill too. They say not to judge books by covers and this is one of them. You can agree on an idealistic viewpoint "Government shouldn't force this on the states" and still be for something. It's called not letting it go to high, just as you wouldn't let it go too low.

If this makes you dislike me or whatnot, fine whatever. But understand when I say this I'm not saying nothing should be done or these people not taken in. I'm saying that when it comes to national policy, keeping the government in check is ideal and that when a society has to have the government come in and "force" them into something, that's the sign of an overly dependent society.

Moral of the story kids, don't be a greedy asswhipe nor a willy nilly "government for the win always" salutor. If in a perfect world these things could be done without something going wrong, I'd be for that. But we don't live in that world, and the solutions will come slowly. All I wanted to say, no real response to anyone, "save for that start thing with Trev as minimal as it was."

 

[Nah]

Seriously most of the illegals aren't even fleeing something bad, they just want lives that they don't have to work for.

Is this just something you're saying while playing as devil's advocate or is it something you actually believe to be the case? If it's the latter, what makes you certain that it is?

To be honest, I find you both very naive on this matter. :/

What makes you say that?

 

[Trev]

Woah there buddy, that's a bit presumptuous thing to say. Now before you say, "they show it", I'd say, "this is a response that has always happened with massive immigrations happening at a time."

See the Irish, Italians in the 1900s or for a different continent example, Greece with the Refugees currently.

That's not proof they would have done it anyways even if it wasn't due to a massive amounts going in. Is it possible, yes, but highly improbable. I doubt that the amount coming in and the hysteria going on as a result, isn't an important reason to that if not the major reason for it.

That doesn't mean it's okay. The Irish were discriminated against for not being considered "white enough" when they immigrated in the early days of America. That wasn't okay. It was just excused at the time because the definition of what people were "white" was narrow compared to today's standards, but that doesn't mean it was justified.

 

[Vragon2.0]

That doesn't mean it's okay. The Irish were discriminated against for not being considered "white enough" when they immigrated in the early days of America. That wasn't okay. It was just excused at the time because the definition of what people were "white" was narrow compared to today's standards, but that doesn't mean it was justified.

I'm not saying it was or that it was justified. Could I have specified that, perhaps in that area, though I do later tell my opinions. I'm just countering what you said and giving a reason "why" it happened instead of your little misguided comment of,

Yes, but that's the fault of the native people being hostile towards people they probably didn't like to begin with.

Just sayin'

 

[Trev]

I'm not saying it was or that it was justified. Could I have specified that, perhaps in that area, though I do later tell my opinions. I'm just countering what you said and giving a reason "why" it happened instead of your little misguided comment of.

That's not a counter though. European colonists didn't like the Irish to begin with. That's why they faced discrimination when they came to America. You're saying the exact same thing I'm saying.

 

[Enpatsu Shakugan]

Is this just something you're saying while playing as devil's advocate or is it something you actually believe to be the case? If it's the latter, what makes you certain that it is?


What makes you say that?

These topics are pointless, I'm finding out. Once someone has already decided on something, there's no point in even trying to discuss anything further. Just more YOU'RE WRONG, NO U, regardless of what is said.

 

[Vragon2.0]

That's not a counter though. European colonists didn't like the Irish to begin with. That's why they faced discrimination when they came to America. You're saying the exact same thing I'm saying.

This...is the only thing I'm countering

they probably didn't like to begin with.

Where you say they would do it "to begin with" implying they would do it anyways, implying no matter how the peeps came in or what number they'd be hit by this, implying they're all against it. Unless you can prove that's how they thought and always did, in which case good luck with that. And even then, we're kinda being generalistic about the an entire country's populace to begin with.

I'm saying, you can't say they would have done it anyways, if there wasn't a hysteria regarding the amount coming in. If they came in at a slow pace with no hysteria, yah think things would be different?

I'm providing a counter to only the part where you play time lord in assuming people's intent behind things that's all.

 

[Trev]

Where you say they would do it "to begin with" implying they would do it anyways, implying no matter how the peeps came in or what number they'd be hit by this, implying they're all against it. Unless you can prove that's how they thought and always did, in which case good luck with that. And even then, we're kinda being generalistic about the an entire country's populace to begin with.

I'm saying, you can't say they would have done it anyways, if there wasn't a hysteria regarding the amount coming in. If they came in at a slow pace with no hysteria, yah think things would be different?

I'm providing a counter to only the part where you play time lord in assuming people's intent behind things that's all.

Here you go, this article talks about British hatred of Ireland before colonization. Also, I typically don't quote Wikipedia anymore, but the history section here details a lot of British animosity against Irish people.

 

[Vragon2.0]

Here you go, this article talks about British hatred of Ireland before colonization. Also, I typically don't quote Wikipedia anymore, but the history section here details a lot of British animosity against Irish people.

Okay, fair enough. I will say presumption on my part yes. However, I still provided other examples and while I will concede probably aren't perfect do still say that Hysteria tends to bring out bad in people. Is it justified, no, but it's a reason that it happens, therefore something we can combat for the future.