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.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,718,665 times
Reputation: 41376
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jess5
Good points, but I can't ever see us "weeding out the corruption in Washington." They all talk a good game until they're elected. If only Sheriff Joe (Arizona) would run!!
You could also love Corey Stewart (Prince William County, VA) if he'd run.
I'd say we let no one in that can't support themselves or that would be a nuisance to America.
Nations like Canada, Austrailia, UK etc require, as a condition of immigration, that the person show evidence that they will not be a "burden" (financially) to the country and that they can "contrbute" to the country.
I would/do support these standards
This nation also requires similar evidence for immigrant visa applicants. The requirements are not as stringent for non-immigrant visa applicants. You should see the big, fat, legally-binding I-864 I had to fill out for my ex's green card app.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozark-Baby
Who do you think should get preference for legally being accepted as an immigrant to our country, an educated person who can support themselves and not be a burden on society or an uneducated and/or ignorant poor person who has little to offer society and will be a burden their whole lives on this country? Tell us and why?
Immigrants should support themselves and their families. They can do that through labour too.
I agree wholeheartedly with others here, the immigration process is totally corrupt and broken. We no longer have need of ANY MORE immigrants, legal or not. We have 300 million, the hotel is full up. NO MORE! I don't care if they come from Tule, Greenland, and have a dozen PhD's, there is no more room at the inn. Good bye, good luck, syonara, adios, arrive derche-- try another country. And that is the supreme joke of all time, as NO other country has been so foolish or so lax as to let in the dangerous, the criminals, the multitudinous "burdens" as this country has done.
I agree wholeheartedly with others here, the immigration process is totally corrupt and broken. We no longer have need of ANY MORE immigrants, legal or not. We have 300 million, the hotel is full up. NO MORE! I don't care if they come from Tule, Greenland, and have a dozen PhD's, there is no more room at the inn. Good bye, good luck, syonara, adios, arrive derche-- try another country. And that is the supreme joke of all time, as NO other country has been so foolish or so lax as to let in the dangerous, the criminals, the multitudinous "burdens" as this country has done.
I have to disagree here regarding legal immigration. Regulate it as needed but, do not cut it off totally.
As for the illegal variety; methinks that well over half will self deport in 18 months or less.
While I totally agree that Americans don't need any more HB1 Visa competition, we already have an estimated 30 million of Mexico and South America's bottom of the food chain. Their birth rates, financial and social services burdens far outweigh any possible net benefit to America. Culturally they are a total disaster; most are either not interested or incapable of learning English or assimilating, as exhibited by the Mexican flag waiving and spanish chanting during the marches. They not only want our jobs they are here for a reconquista.
Once again, I was attempting a little humor. All joking aside, this whole controversy reflects an enormous divide in thinking--- that is, the divide between (1) those who see America as a viable, defensible nation, with its own priorities, and the legal and moral right to "look out for itself"...OR, (2) those who see America as simply having an open-ended moral obligation to provide a refuge for the world's poor, regardless of our own domestic needs or the financial or social costs incurred in providing this 'service', no questions asked, to anyone who 'shows up'. It's a HUGE divide, and its two sides have widely-differing ideas of the role of immigration.
I tend to favor the FIRST idea. America was founded on a pretty uniquely noble principle, and we've gone to great lengths to accomodate any number of people who want to come here...but, at the end of the day, we're still a 'regular' country, and there IS a limit to how much we should be obligated to 'open the doors' to others. It seems that our generosity and willingness to 'help out' and give refuge to the world's downtrodden, is now being 'thrown in our face', and used against us. There comes a point at which some of the misfortunes of the people of other countries are NOT our fault. At that point, people need to look elsewhere for their solutions. We can, and will continue to, help out. But we can't do it all, and we do have limits...And this fact, alone, is enough to cause some people to criticize us for being 'unkind'.....and that's not true at all.
I don't think it should be by race or ethnicity at all. That means also that most of our immigrants should not come from just one country through family chain migration.
Immigration should be limited to those who truly with to become American, who know English -- preferably before arriving, who can be self-reliant and working.
I don't think it should be limited to wealthy or elitist types -- they can be more trouble than the poor from their countries, and often they are very arrogant about preferring their culture of third world cheap servants -- like the immigrant couple arrested for slavery recently.
The ability to learn English needs to be one of the top criteria but also the ability to stay off welfare handouts.
I have to disagree here regarding legal immigration. Regulate it as needed but, do not cut it off totally.
As for the illegal variety; methinks that well over half will self deport in 18 months or less.
I disagree with you AB. I do think that there should be a moratorium on ALL immigration until the ones we have here legally assimilate themselves. And we are not just talking about Mexicans here, but Muslims and immigrants from any and all countries. There are far too many that think this is their country, the old country, and they tend to live and act like they did there disregarding any law that we have when it goes against their "ways".
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.
