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.
Well I think that legal hostile occupation is what's CAUSING the dehumanization of immigrants. People are afraid. Our world is changing and I don't think for the better if legal (or illegal) immigrants and immigration keeps going the way it has. Some cities ARE "occupied" if you want to call it that.
US School Forces Kids To Convert To Islam:US School Forces Kids To Convert To Islam, Mama Bears Have Perfect Payback – meryinfo
How can you respect people when they don't respect us, our WOMEN, our laws (they want their own) our cultures, our beliefs, etc, and be thankful for being in a safer country than they've come from?
1. I have no problem at all with penalizing those that violated the religious freedom of the students by forcing a conversion. But most immigrants DO NOT do this type of thing. You punish the evildoers only, and their accomplices, if applicable. If you want to deport them, deport them. But don't treat all immigrants as being like them, because they are a small minority. There is no scientific evidence that immigrants are more prone than citizens, on average, to forcing their views upon others.
2. There is nothing wrong with having Muslims on the city council, as long as they were fairly elected by the citizens of the community and do not force their views on anyone who doesn't consent to it. This is religious diversity, not a hostile takeover or invasion. Now, if these council members invoked Sharia law, or even passed misogynistic policies, then I would be in agreement with you.
Well I think that legal hostile occupation is what's CAUSING the dehumanization of immigrants. People are afraid. Our world is changing and I don't think for the better if legal (or illegal) immigrants and immigration keeps going the way it has. Some cities ARE "occupied" if you want to call it that.
US School Forces Kids To Convert To Islam:US School Forces Kids To Convert To Islam, Mama Bears Have Perfect Payback – meryinfo
How can you respect people when they don't respect us, our WOMEN, our laws (they want their own) our cultures, our beliefs, etc, and be thankful for being in a safer country than they've come from?
Check that first source before posting something like that. That website doesn't even come up on a google search. Seriously.
You are making a blanket statement that immigrants almost never earn their keep. This is the problem I have with many of the arguments against freer immigration, that they assume immigrants have or are X, Y, Z, but then they try to use those arguments to justify not allowing people to enter freely even those that don't meet the stereotype used in the argument.
If you allow increased immigration but only in such a way that those that come are NOT disproportionally a net drain on the system, then your argument simply doesn't work. We can let in more than 1 million immigrants annually but do it in such a way that they don't break the bank. For instance, we could cap the welfare benefits an immigrant can receive at the amount of taxes they have paid, or even half the amount of taxes they have paid. This is a much less drastic solution than what we do now but would solve the problem you speak of.
States do it all the time - look at how out-of-state tuition is charged. Why not do the same for out-of-the-country tuition?
And the red tape is very extensive in some cases. I know, because I have had colleagues that were first-generation immigrants or visa holders.
Under the law an immigrant can not draw public benefits, public benefits are for U.S. citizens only.
Under public law 414 any person applying for immigration status into the United States that may end up as a "public charge" will be denied entry into the U.S.
Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182]
(4) Public charge.-
(A) In general.-Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for
a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for
admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public
charge is inadmissible.
Let me clarify something up here. An immigrant is a person that comes to the U.S. and has not obtained citizenship. They are protected under the law however, the benefits afforded to American citizens do not apply.
A naturalized citizen is an immigrant that has come to the U.S. and has obtained U.S. citizenship, therefore they are Americans and are entitled to all benefits afforded to U.S. citizens.
I guess my comment will hold some value here, being an ex-immigrant to the USA.
I am an Indian, have lived in the USA for nearly 5 years on a work-visa, and have a kid who is a US citizen by birth.
1. I believe that there is a separate visa for “job creators”. People who wish to create jobs can apply under it.
2. Response below.
3. I lived in the white-bread country (Central WI) for more than 4 years, and nearly 6 months on the East Coast (with lots of brown people around). Guess what- I would take central WI any day over the East Coast despite the brutal winters, just because people are nice and warm, pretty unlike the East coast. And while in WI, no one ever used the “T word"* with me, nor did I ever feel that I was prejudiced against based upon my skin color or the accent of spoken English.
4. No experience on this.
5. Response below.
6. If this is regarding H4 holders (dependents of H1B holders) not being able to work, it is a choice. Everyone that I know who has applied for H1B knows that their dependents cannot work in the USA. It is up to people to decide if they want to move to the States knowing they will be essentially on one income. It is not like the rules have been changed mid-way.
The OP is either a smart attempt at trolling, or the grand vision of someone living in a “no boundaries” utopia. Back in the real world, things do not work this way.
As an immigrant, I understood that being given a chance to work in the US was an opportunity for me, not a right. I could not have demanded that the US let me in.
I am not a US citizen, so even though I had rights as a US resident, I had no rights to demand the US govt. or people to bend over backwards to make me happy. So, I couldn’t go around asking the government to ban beef from supermarkets because I am a Hindu and eating of beef hurts my religious sentiments. It was up to me to assimilate in the existing culture and not the other way.
Oh, and while I am in the US, I am also subjected to the laws of the country. If I don’t like it, I can choose to go back or not travel to the US at all.
Regarding #5 in the OP, there is a proverb that states “Charity begins at home”. Enough said.
Under the law an immigrant can not draw public benefits, public benefits are for U.S. citizens only.
Under public law 414 any person applying for immigration status into the United States that may end up as a "public charge" will be denied entry into the U.S.
Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182]
(4) Public charge.-
(A) In general.-Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for
a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for
admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public
charge is inadmissible.
Let me clarify something up here. An immigrant is a person that comes to the U.S. and has not obtained citizenship. They are protected under the law however, the benefits afforded to American citizens do not apply.
A naturalized citizen is an immigrant that has come to the U.S. and has obtained U.S. citizenship, therefore they are Americans and are entitled to all benefits afforded to U.S. citizens.
This is true; however, many illegal immigrants come here and still get benefits such as free healthcare. I have a problem with that! They come here and have a baby FOR FREE, yet I was born here, pay taxes AND even with healthcare it cost me thousands of dollars to have a baby. Something isn't right!
1. Some immigrants want to take jobs, and others want to create jobs, or be self-employed. If concern over the job market were the real reason for all the red tape that immigrants face on education and jobs, then those that want to be self-employed would not be treated the same way or with so much red tape and bureaucratic paperwork and complex rules. Yet, they have to put up with it too. Thus the jobs argument appears to be a red herring and the real issue is not jobs, but xenophobia.
2. The travel ban and other restrictions cause immigrants to be inconvenienced in a major way. If citizens were treated like this, there would be enormous outcry. But when it's immigrants, it is somehow acceptable to do this.
3. It is socially acceptable to stereotype immigrants in ways that would be considered hate speech if applied to citizens. For example, it is acceptable to say that immigrants want to damage the country, or to speak as though they do without saying it explicitly. If things like this were said about citizens, it would be considered bigotry. Yet there is no scientific evidence that immigrants are more susceptible to violent actions than citizens.
4. The citizenship test requires a high level of knowledge about civics that many Americans do not possess. This is reminiscent of the literacy tests from several decades ago that were used to deny African-Americans the ability to vote.
5. If someone flees domestic violence or gang violence in America, many social programs are available for them, even when it inconveniences others or costs them money to pay for. But when people flee even worse conditions overseas, we don't accept even the slightest and most trivial inconvenience to allow them to escape such conditions.
6. Denying immigrants jobs is discrimination on the basis of national origin. Yet not only is it legal, but it is legally required. When someone says that discrimination based on national origin is prohibited, they are dehumanizing immigrants by speaking as though they aren't even people.
You conveniently forgot that they knew they were illegal when they came here.
The point is more than that. It is that the jobs argument is insufficient to justify the degree and breadth with which immigration is restricted in the U.S.
All countries restrict immigration. Could you clarify what your concern is?
Well I think that legal hostile occupation is what's CAUSING the dehumanization of immigrants. People are afraid. Our world is changing and I don't think for the better if legal (or illegal) immigrants and immigration keeps going the way it has. Some cities ARE "occupied" if you want to call it that.
How can you respect people when they don't respect us, our WOMEN, our laws (they want their own) our cultures, our beliefs, etc, and be thankful for being in a safer country than they've come from?
Somewhat similar hysteria and concerns used to be expressed about Catholics becoming politicians. Kennedy was considered unelectable by many.
1. Some immigrants want to take jobs, and others want to create jobs, or be self-employed. If concern over the job market were the real reason for all the red tape that immigrants face on education and jobs, then those that want to be self-employed would not be treated the same way or with so much red tape and bureaucratic paperwork and complex rules. Yet, they have to put up with it too. Thus the jobs argument appears to be a red herring and the real issue is not jobs, but xenophobia.
The issue is, has been, and continues to be illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. Asian and Indian immigrants tend to be self-employed, and when they do hire, they hire other Asian or Indian immigrants, so they're not exactly job creators.
The process of vetting legal immigrants is crucial to avoid the criminal element from immigrating to the US.
Note that immigration is a privilege, not a right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
2. The travel ban and other restrictions cause immigrants to be inconvenienced in a major way. If citizens were treated like this, there would be enormous outcry. But when it's immigrants, it is somehow acceptable to do this.
The Travel Ban is a temporary restriction on immigration from seven foreign States that do not maintain records the way 1st World States maintain records. Because the record-keeping in those States ranges from very sloppy to non-existent, it is wise to develop an alternative vetting process to ensure no criminals or ne'er do wells immigrate to the US. Again, note that immigration is a privilege, not a right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
3. It is socially acceptable to stereotype immigrants in ways that would be considered hate speech if applied to citizens. For example, it is acceptable to say that immigrants want to damage the country, or to speak as though they do without saying it explicitly. If things like this were said about citizens, it would be considered bigotry. Yet there is no scientific evidence that immigrants are more susceptible to violent actions than citizens.
Immigrants are not more susceptible to violent actions, due to the fact that the immigration process is extremely rigid with regard to vetting, using red tape, bureaucratic paperwork and a complex process, which you decried in Point #1, so you have contradicted yourself.
Contrary to your false beliefs, the implementation of Shari'a Law, which is the agenda for many Muslim immigrants, is damaging to the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
4. The citizenship test requires a high level of knowledge about civics that many Americans do not possess. This is reminiscent of the literacy tests from several decades ago that were used to deny African-Americans the ability to vote.
It is a privilege to become a US Citizen, not an inherent innate right. The test is designed to ensure that only the most serious immigrants become US Citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
5. If someone flees domestic violence or gang violence in America, many social programs are available for them, even when it inconveniences others or costs them money to pay for. But when people flee even worse conditions overseas, we don't accept even the slightest and most trivial inconvenience to allow them to escape such conditions.
Yes, the US does. Immigrants can file special paperwork to receive asylum for any number of reasons. Once again, you fail to recognize that immigration to the US is a privilege, not a right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
6. Denying immigrants jobs is discrimination on the basis of national origin. Yet not only is it legal, but it is legally required. When someone says that discrimination based on national origin is prohibited, they are dehumanizing immigrants by speaking as though they aren't even people.
Clearly, you're referring to illegal immigrants which are in a different class than legal immigrants who have gone through the bureaucratic red tape that is the vetting process to ensure criminals and ne'er do wells do not enter the US.
The reason it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants is to discourage illegal immigration, not legal immigration.
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.
