Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no requirement to refuse giving a job to immigrants across the board. The employment ban only pertains to illegal immigrants.
The civics part of the citizenship test is a cakewalk, according to the people I know who took it. The gov't even has a study book available, that has all the questions and answers in it. They make it easy as pie to pass the test.
What travel ban are you talking about, specifically?
Asylum law in the past has been very biased in favor of people from a certain part of the world, and against people genuinely fleeing life-threatening conditions (in some instances--conditions the US had a hand in creating). This is wrong, and should be addressed by the citizenry and their Congressional representatives.
You can't just deport native born citizens, even if they are illiterate. I don't think you support eugenics. To be honest, you have to be very dumb to fail the test unless you don't speak English.
What they ought to do? This is a great question. Let me put it this way, in India, there are over 1 billion Indians who want to move to the U.S. For many of them, the citizenship test is a piece of cake. Are you ready to accept 1 billion Indian immigrants? and maybe another 1 billion Chinese? and another 2 billion people from other third world countries? Is that number big enough for you?
You are exaggerating (Not 100% of those in India or China would come to the US, many would stay put or go to Europe). But you do make a point that perhaps we can't accommodate all those who want to come here. In such cases it could still be done, albeit over a very long period of time (perhaps a century or maybe two?). The issue is still that effort isn't being put in proportion to what we would do if those who want to come here were treated as fully human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodHombre
It really boils down to two questions. How many immigrants can you handle? Who can come and who can't? Again, there are 1 billion Indians who want to be American. What do you think? Merit based? Need based? The liberals prefer need based immigration policy, which will bring tens of millions low-skill uneducated immigrants who cannot support themselves.
Humans are selfish, Most Americans want the government to put Americans first. Someone has to lose his job, either you or a poor third world worker. What's your choice?
In a large way, this is true, with the same caveats as mentioned above. But you are ignoring the point I made earlier, in the original post, about immigrants who want to *create* jobs.
This country cannot simply swing the doors open and welcome in all the people who would like to come to America. The numbers of those people are almost unfathomable, as demonstrated by the old lottery system.
We have limited resources (try living in most of the arid west) and the balance of what is healthy for us and our environment is at question.
It is not our responsibility to save the world. Take Sudan as just one example. It is not our responsibility to save Sudan or its citizens. It is Sudan's responsibility.
When I read these occasional threads that you invent, I often wonder if you are an intelligent troll (because you do write well), or just a person who seems to favor change for the sake of change.
When this country can (and does) take care of its own poor and sick and uneducated, then -- and not until then -- will I be willing to seriously listen to someone suggesting we take care of another country's poor and sick and uneducated. Until that time comes, I suggest you invest your money in charities that help those in other countries while they are in their countries.
Ok, for the record, ignoring the personal attack you made, what source(s) are you using to estimate the number of people who would, if given the chance, come to the US?
The liberals aren't sincerely interested in human rights, they want the illegals to vote for them.
Not this nonsense again. It's hard to make sound arguments without the wacky conspiracy theories.
I have an idea, since it is not in our interest to help third world countries then we should start by getting out of their countries, stop bombing them and stop selling arms to terrorist funders.
Allow these third world countries to fix themselves without our help.
You are exaggerating (Not 100% of those in India or China would come to the US, many would stay put or go to Europe). But you do make a point that perhaps we can't accommodate all those who want to come here. In such cases it could still be done, albeit over a very long period of time (perhaps a century or maybe two?). The issue is still that effort isn't being put in proportion to what we would do if those who want to come here were treated as fully human.
In a large way, this is true, with the same caveats as mentioned above. But you are ignoring the point I made earlier, in the original post, about immigrants who want to *create* jobs.
The problem with a flood is that it attacks the intrigrety of a region. Our immigration laws are there to ensure that immigration does not destroy our way of life. If one wants to immigrate and create jobs; come into our nation lawfully and create all the jobs you want to create. We need honest, law-abiding citizens; not people who are dishonest, come in illegally through the back door and have no respect for our immigration laws and therefore have no respect for any of our laws.
If you are a foreign student seeking admission to any college or university, including the most liberal ones such as UC Berkeley, you have to demonstrate your English proficiency. There's no need to speak perfect English, but you need to attend lecture delivered in English, read textbooks in English, write your exam paper in English.
Even the most liberal school understands you can't succeed in school without learning English. Is it hard to understand the majority of immigrants need to learn English to be a productive member of society?
Isn't it ironic that you need to speak quite a bit English to attend a school, but you don't need to speak any English to become a U.S citizen?
Immigrants who don't speak English are less likely to succeed, more likely to be in trouble. It couldn't be obvious.
The official language thing is purely political, and irrelevant in practical terms.
If you are a foreign student seeking admission to any college or university, including the most liberal ones such as UC Berkeley, you have to demonstrate your English proficiency. There's no need to speak perfect English, but you need to attend lecture delivered in English, read textbooks in English, write your exam paper in English.
Even the most liberal school understands you can't succeed in school without learning English. Is it hard to understand the majority of immigrants need to learn English to be a productive member of society?
Isn't it ironic that you need to speak quite a bit English to attend a school, but you don't need to speak any English to become a U.S citizen?
Immigrants who don't speak English are less likely to succeed, more likely to be in trouble. It couldn't be obvious.
The official language thing is purely political, and irrelevant in practical terms.
Are you meaning to suggest that immigrants are so irrational that they would choose to attend an institution at which they cannot succeed due to a language barrier? I'm sure some are, but it would be mass stereotyping to assume that most immigrants are.
Not this nonsense again. It's hard to make sound arguments without the wacky conspiracy theories.
I have an idea, since it is not in our interest to help third world countries then we should start by getting out of their countries, stop bombing them and stop selling arms to terrorist funders.
Allow these third world countries to fix themselves without our help.
The U.S is responsible for creating the mess in certain parts of the world.
But nobody is bombing Mexico. Mexico doesn't seem to have the ability to fix itself. India is responsible for its own problems. How can the U.S get out of these countries without getting in?
The problem with a flood is that it attacks the intrigrety of a region. Our immigration laws are there to ensure that immigration does not destroy our way of life. If one wants to immigrate and create jobs; come into our nation lawfully and create all the jobs you want to create. We need honest, law-abiding citizens; not people who are dishonest, come in illegally through the back door and have no respect for our immigration laws and therefore have no respect for any of our laws.
You assume that the system is fair to begin with in order to argue that the system is fair. This is a circular argument that does not address questions such as what the ideal waitlist time should be for a green card or the ideal requirements for a visa for work or school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN
Illegals would be in prison along with other criminals.
Not in prison. Deported. (Unless you assume that they would commit violent crimes, but this would be a severe stereotype that is not supported by scientific evidence. Yes, some do, but this is true of citizens also)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
