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.
I think I remember reading that ~60 million people every year apply for immigration visas to the U.S. If let everyone in, our population would double in 5 years. The effects of that would include
Massive increase in traffic
Massive increase in housing prices
Arguably, massive increase in competition for jobs
Crowded parks, beaches, etc.
It would be very difficult to argue that we could double our population so quickly without our standard of living dropping.
I guess what the liberals think is that it's okay to sacrifice our standard of living at the alter of "diversity" or "inclusiveness"? Am I understanding that correctly?
No, but that's not happening.
Record numbers are already being deported by Obama admin, and it's already a long and arduous process to get permanent residency in this country anyway.
The salient point is that conservatives are scapegoating immigrants. They're really not much of a problem, and banning them all is not going to bring back your manufacturing jobs from China.
It's just an outlet to channel people's anger, much like the Jews in 1930s Europe.
When I can go to any nation in the world and stay there indefinitely if I like, then I would consider opening my own country's borders (maybe). Until then, what's fair is fair. Toot for tat. No toot, no tat.
Sadly, it seems that a nation that was founded by men who believed that religious discrimination was wrong has now sunk to the level of Germany in the Thirties by seriously banning an entire religion - out of fear.
You may think that's OK. I do not.
Muslims are not the enemy. Terrorists are, regardless of religion.
Now, what about practical application?
There are three kinds of immigrants - travelers with a visa - visitors/vacationers/tourists, students, businesspeople, refugees, and illegal immigrants.
Some illegal immigrant sneak over a border or stow away, and we don't have any way of knowing who they are - this includes people who enter legally but overstay their visa, by the way. Are they Muslim? How would we know?
Perhaps you can explain how immigration officials would know whether or not a traveler arriving in the US with a valid visa is a Muslim, an atheist, or a Catholic? I don't recall seeing a religious test question on the I-94. Perhaps President-elect Trump will use an executive order to add one on his first day in office.
Should foreign passport holders who self-identify as Muslim be denied entry? How would we know if they are Muslims? What if they are visiting family members who are citizens? What if they are Muslim businesspeople who want to attend a conference or effect a business transaction? What if they are diplomats who happen to be Muslims?
Refugees - especially those from nations with significant Islamic terrorist activity- are already extensively vetted, although it's an imperfect process. What would you have President-elect Trump do about them? Refuse all Muslim refugees? Refuse all refugees from countries with significant Islamic terrorist activity? What if they enter from a "friendly" nation and conceal their origin?
Perhaps a total ban on all entry into the US by anyone with a certain complexion? But there are Muslims of all races.
What might nations with large Muslim populations do in response? Could the US find itself losing allies, access to intelligence, markets for our goods and services, necessary imports?
Are you beginning to comprehend the complexity of this issue?
You are just trying to confuse the matter. We issue too many visas immigrant and visitor period to the entire world. We need to be much more selective and stringent. We had a well working immigration law before 1965, and that's what we should go back to.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Yep. No surprise that you would edit the quote dishonestly.
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.â€
I didnt edit anything, It was the first quote that came up and that is how it appeared.
And adding the end doesnt even change the argument, unless you define merit by only your standard.
When I can go to any nation in the world and stay there indefinitely if I like, then I would consider opening my own country's borders (maybe). Until then, what's fair is fair. Toot for tat. No toot, no tat.
I agree there's no fairness or reciprocity with most other countries regarding immigration or trade.
What's so bad about the idea? I'm against liberalism in general, but the US is not overpopulated by any standard compared to other countries. A greater populations means a greater potential GDP, and immigrants generally work hard. I think the US can support a population of a billion people, at least.
Some of us like having vacant, empty land. Some of us don't want the US to look like India, or Japan, where every square mile of land is utilized. Some of us like open spaces.
Evidently, city people don't seem to understand any of that. They think we all want to live in metropolises filled with skyscrapers and mass transit systems.
You are just trying to confuse the matter. We issue too many visas immigrant and visitor period to the entire world. We need to be much more selective and stringent. We had a well working immigration law before 1965, and that's what we should go back to.
The matter is complex, hence your confusion. We could just slam the door, close the flow to a trickle, but how, and why?
The world population is much larger today than it was in 1965.
Our trade and international relations are much more interconnected that they were in 1965.
For example, in 1965 there was no travel to/from Communist bloc countries. Now there is. Some of those nations are now our business partners, allies, and suppliers.
The number of international travelers has surged, and throttling it back would have serious economic, political, and military repercussions. I'm not convinced it would make us safer.
You haven't demonstrated that the immigration law in place before 1965 would solve the problems we face today.
Stating repeatedly that it would isn't very convincing to me.
Can you explain how and why rolling back the Hart-Celler Act would keep people from immigrating illegally?
If you supported Hillary you were supporting open borders and amnesty and group identity politics. That's the democrat platform in a nutshell. The Democrats could correct this and get enough republicans to go along.
I'll clarify who I am.
I voted for Hillary. It was my way to ask Trump to prove me wrong. Say what? I live in Massachusetts, and a Trump vote, other than for the popular vote count, would have meant nothing to the outcome as Hillary steamrolled Massachusetts as expected. Thus, I played a mind game with myself as I marked off Hillary, where I really wanted Trump to win and silently challenged him.
I hate the open borders. I hate how we send more money to foreign countries as opposed to helping our own poor and needy. I believe Trump is the man to shake up the establishment and bring both sides towards the middle.
I can't help the state I'm in. I voted for Charlie Baker, our republican governor. I'm a swing voter. I vote the person first and party second. Not every Hillary voter backs everything she stands for. But many like the left more than the right. This is my blender year I guess. I hate both sides for varying reasons. I am hopeful for Trump.
When I can go to any nation in the world and stay there indefinitely if I like, then I would consider opening my own country's borders (maybe). Until then, what's fair is fair. Toot for tat. No toot, no tat.
Well, there are lots of American expats living in Thailand (as just one example). So you are in favor of opening our country's borders to any Thai who wants to emigrate here? Interesting.
Can you explain how and why rolling back the Hart-Celler Act would keep people from immigrating illegally?
If you can, please do. Thanks!
Ironically illegal immigration skyrocketed too after 1965 Hart-Cellar Act.
I don't just propose the roll back of Cellar but several other immigration reforms and enforcement, e-verify, ending birthright citizenship, building a wall etc. A lot of illegal immigration is from people who were issued a temporary visitor visa, overstayed and no one tells them they must leave. Like I said we issue too many visas and don't enforce immigration law.
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.
