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.
Ummm.... It doesn't look like anyone converted to Islam. Local news sources seem to be reporting that students were asked to learn some facts about Islam.
Please stop calling them immigrants, and call them what they truly are: criminals.
That said, I don't care if they can create jobs, or services or contribute to healthcare. If they are here on a work visa, they should WORK. If they are here on a student visa, they should STUDY. If they are going to start a business while here, they are committing fraud.
And why should we not allow someone to do more than one thing?
OP, if you're talking about illegal immigrants and refugees, if that is the topic of your thread, please say so. It's too confusing otherwise. Please identify the type of immigrant you created this thread to discuss. You've avoided doing so for the entire thread so far. It's page 11 at this point; it's about time you clarify your topic.
I am talking about all immigrants collectively. Legal and illegal.
Let me make an analogy. Imagine, hypothetically, that the drinking age had been raised to 47. There were many sources which looked at the health outcomes of legal drinking vs. "illegal drinking", where "illegal" drinking included both drinking under age 47 and drinking beverages that were brewed, distilled, or sold illegally ("moonshine"). The sources all said that illegal drinking carries much higher risks of causing adverse health outcomes than legal drinking. Because of this, it would be argued that there is no Prohibition; rather, we limit drinking to only "legal" drinking and ban "illegal drinking".
Do you see what the problem is in this scenario? The problem is that by insisting on the division between legal and illegal, you are lumping together all the cases that are in violation of the rules set by the government, and by so doing, you make the legitimacy of the cutoff points or criteria in the law almost uncritiqueable.
For this reason, I do not, and will not, specify "legal" or "illegal" immigrants, because this artificially frames the discussion in a way that essentially pre-supposes the legitimacy of current legal criteria, and thus amounts to circular reasoning.
...
However, allowing uneducated, low skilled immigrants and refugees to come in doesn't have any benefits. To make matters worse, ineffective immigration policy will lead to national security issue(terrorists) and social issues(drugs and crimes).
Really? Who is it picking most of the veggies and fruits in California's Great Valley? I've been there and observed, and it pretty clearly was mostly Mexicans, and based on their living conditions they were transients, so probably heavily illegal.
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?
1. It wasn't a personal attack. I legitimately wonder about that.
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.
Well..where do I start?
1) Well..OK..it's a valid point..and true, in many instances. The Govt. however, regulates the entry of non-citizens into this country. Most of the 'red tape' is the Bureaucracy in action.
2)It is acceptable to do this...we have a right..and a duty...to be sure who we let into our country. I am against the Trump ban..because it's being done in entirely the wrong way..IMO. But, make no mistake, good border security is key to maintaining our freedoms and our quality of life. So yes..it's going to be hard. But our country is full of people who faced those barriers and prevailed.
3) Bigotry, while deplorable, is not against the law.
I do agree that many are just unwilling to see another brown face--while they will dress it up with faux arguments--that's at the core of their antipathy.
4) As well it should be. Becoming a citizen should require a knowledge of our Govt. and culture. It is insulting for you to compare this with the 'literacy tests' that were part of the Jim Crow era. Those tests were designed so that no-one could pass them..they were meant to exclude. Our citizenship test is designed to be inclusive...and is not all that difficult. That many Americans could not pass the test, is just a shame, nothing more.
5) OK..here is where you went off the rails. Their are hundreds of programs that are designed to help the immigrant and the refugee assimilate into our society. In fact, it's the plethora of such programs that has the Right up in arms.
6) Not sure what you mean here--there are many reasons why an immigrant may not get a job. Poor English skills, inability to train, better candidate are a few....if your point is that immigrants are 'entitled' to a job---no. They're in our country...they need to compete..just like we do. Again, the country is full of people..and their descendants....who overcame the same obstacles..and more--100 years ago there was no safety net. My great-grandmother picked over garbage to find something to sell--and came Prohibition--was a cigarette girl in a speak-easy. We counted the other day and there are over 300 people descended from our Matriarch. Immigrants have to earn it..it's just the way it is.
And why should we not allow someone to do more than one thing?
They ARE allowed to do more than one thing. But starting a business isn't one of them. You really seem to tie your whole dehumanization tripe on this, and it is ridiculous. Laughable actually. Like a spoiled 6 year old crying and stamping her foot.
They ARE allowed to do more than one thing. But starting a business isn't one of them. You really seem to tie your whole dehumanization tripe on this, and it is ridiculous. Laughable actually. Like a spoiled 6 year old crying and stamping her foot.
It has nothing to do with being spoiled. It is simply an illustrative counterexample to the argument that the prohibited activities encourage unemployment-producing immigration. I made plenty of other points in OP, this particular point I did repeat and harp on, but only because I was responding to multiple posters who made the unemployment argument over and over.
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.
