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.
1.) Poor people
2.) People who don't speak English
3.) Illiterate people (in any language)
4.) People whose values are very different from our own (take that any way you like)
5.) People who expect us to change to accommodate them
6.) People who are here to take jobs that Americans are perfectly capable of doing
I agree. Personally, I have never really had a problem with restrictive immigration policy.
Both the GOP & Dems allowed immigration to flow. Democrats more than ever needed immigrants in order to increase their voting base and for socialism to be implemented. The creation of welfare states.
GOP needed immigrants to satisfy many company's desire for outsourcing American workers.
In Japan, it doesn't matter if a child is born on their soil. Without both parents being Japanese citizens, they will still deport.
It is really interesting to see so many counties immigration laws and compare them with americas porous borders , from mexico to europe to asia and all over the world, many nations are cracking down on illegal immigration or never allowed much of it in the first place
"In Monday's Talking Points Memo, Bill O'Reilly responded to plans by the Obama administration to accept about 2,000 people who had illegally immigrated to Australia, but were deported by the government and sent to a remote area of the South Pacific.
Australia believes illegal immigrants will destabilize their country, and the nation's military is in charge of immigration, O'Reilly said.
But, in the United States, anti-illegal immigration advocates are seen as not being compassionate to refugees.
"Liberal zealotry sees America as a nation driven by white privilege and wants to flood the USA with new citizens," he noted, and laid out what a fair policy might be for the incoming Trump administration to consider.
O'Reilly wondered why there is no condemnation of Australia's tough policies on illegal immigration and asylum-seekers, noting that both liberals and conservatives there support the policies with "little moral debate."
He explained that if a city in Australia declared itself a "sanctuary" for those in the country illegally, it would have "big trouble" with the military, which enforces the law. "
Uh, the military is not in charge of immigration. The function of "border force "
() is to intercept boats attempting to offload illegal immigrants. There's no such thing as sanctuary cities, and "border force" wouldn't roll in the military. What rubbish.
As previously explained; Australia's policy is no refugees who have come illegally will be settled in Australia.
As the article details, these wouldn't be additional numbers to the US quota. They've been deemed refugees. We, in this deal take people from Costa Rica.
It's not like we are just offloading people.
Ol' Bill left that part out.
Last edited by artemis agrotera; 12-13-2016 at 01:51 PM..
In Japan, it doesn't matter if a child is born on their soil. Without both parents being Japanese citizens, they will still deport.
Not according to Article 2 of Japan's "Nationality Law,"which states:
A child shall, in any of the following cases, be a Japanese national:
(1) When, at the time of its birth, the father or the mother is a Japanese national;
(2) When the father who died prior to the birth of the child was a Japanese national at the time of his death;
(3) When both parents are unknown or have no nationality in a case where the child is born in Japan. Japanese Ministry of Justice -- The Nationality Law
America has always been a violent nation, more so today but immigration didn't just begin this century. Japan has an ageing population, the birth rate has declined and they need to allow immigrants to sustain. What do you think the US would look like lacking young immigrants who account for a high percentage of births, very old country. Immigration has been allowed by both republicans and democrats, regardless of what those on the right say publically they understand the economics. Perfect time for change with all the GOP governors, legislatures, president and congress, watch what happens.
It's easier to keep up with infrastructure when you don't spend 5% of GDP on Defense.
Housing projects, segregation were failed policies, but we are learning from our mistakes.
I dont care about the aging demographics of the japanese people, you will never see them take in loads of syrian refugees or large immigration into japan, even from other Asian countries. You wont see barrios,ghettos,japanese women raped and assaulted, riots and nice/boston/san bernardino /paris style atatcks in japan or south korea,singapore,hong kong taiwan etc for that matter
Asian societies are focused on keeping crime rates low, clean and efficient mass transit, excellent science and stem education, etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchmen
Repubs don't want to restrict immigration to embrace socialism, or any liberal policies for that matter. Let’s not kid ourselves. So no need to ever bring up Sweden, Denmark, or Norway in support of your arguments against immigration.
Anti-immigration repubs will never get the vote of liberals who are all for capping immigration more tightly until said repubs start embracing progressive stances on other issues – energy, education, healthcare, labor, transportation, etc. etc. – which they will never do.
I will be the first to say republicans are as much to blame for immigration crisis we have in this country, demographic changes have been phenomenal since 1980 and the election of Reagan and the republicans are lucky to have the democrats to run against, if they faced a real right wing party like the ones you see in europe , they would be in trouble.
But to say that libs dont favor immigration is comical.
This whole fiasco started with kennedy and the 1965 bill, the democrats absolutely need minorities to win any national elections, whites have been leaving the democratic party in droves. Certainly the white working class for sure but college educated whites as well, trump crushed hillary among white college-educated men, 54 to 39 percent.
People dont admire anything about the democratic party and american liberals because they are mediocre, its pretty hard to find a true multicultural liberal in most societies like you do in the united states, even in the west many leftists are leery of immigration and multiculturalism and in asia and those type of multiculturalists and leftists found in america are non existent.
In america, the civil rights movement,feminism and gay liberation and minorities are pretty much the backbone of the democratic party
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis agrotera;46494888 Uh, the military is not in charge of immigration. The function of "border force "
() is to intercept boats attempting to offload illegal immigrants. There's no such thing as sanctuary cities, and "border force" wouldn't roll in the military. What rubbish.
As to the AUS/US deal on the refugees, some information here:
[url
As previously explained; Australia's policy is no refugees who have come illegally will be settled in Australia.
As the article details, these wouldn't be additional numbers to the US quota. They've been deemed refugees. We, in this deal take people from Costa Rica.
It's not like we are just offloading people.
Ol' Bill left that part out.
The whole article was about his reaction to obamas decision to accept 2,000 refugees Australia sent to languish in the south pacific. The Australian governments strategy it seems is to treat asylum-seekers who arrive by boat so terribly that they simply give up trying to come, turning back boats, mandatory detention and refugee camps in neighboring islands of Nauru,etc
They use the Navy to intercept and return boats carrying asylum-seekers to countries like Indonesia, and Sri Lanka. Those who do reach Australian territory are sent to privately run detention centers on Pacific island states like Nauru, where conditions are poor.
Of course Unlike Europe and America, Australia has not witnessed the rise of populist/extreme-right-wing political figures with any serious chances of winning
This liberal is not and never has been in favor of mass immigration, especially from countries that are very different culturally/linguistically.
I don't care if people think it's racist.
I don't actually think that there is strength in diversity. I'd rather see America remain, demographically speaking, like it was in the 60s.
I don't think we need to import more:
1.) Poor people
2.) People who don't speak English
3.) Illiterate people (in any language)
4.) People whose values are very different from our own (take that any way you like)
5.) People who expect us to change to accommodate them
6.) People who are here to take jobs that Americans are perfectly capable of doing
This conservative totally agrees with you. I suspect that secretly more people of both persausions do than don't but won't say anything because they don't want to be labeled as intolerant.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
But to say that libs dont favor immigration is comical.
Poor phrasing or a missing comma on my part. I didn’t say that liberals don’t favor high levels of immigration, they certainly do as a whole. However, there are individual liberals who are all for limits on all types of immigration, but repubs will never capture those votes, since they have vile stances on just about everything else.
This conservative totally agrees with you. I suspect that secretly more people of both persausions do than don't but won't say anything because they don't want to be labeled as intolerant.
This forum is relatively anonymous in that a casual user browsing the site won't know who I am. They'd have to hack it to figure it out, and that's a lot of effort for most people.
However, I've said the exact same thing out loud to other people, though I don't say it at work for obvious reasons. And I'd never post it on Facebook (or Twitter, if I used Twitter).
Poor phrasing or a missing comma on my part. I didn’t say that liberals don’t favor high levels of immigration, they certainly do as a whole. However, there are individual liberals who are all for limits on all types of immigration, but repubs will never capture those votes, since they have vile stances on just about everything else.
Most of the populist right wing parties in europe tend to be very right wing on protecting the borders,crime etc, but very liberal on alot of social issues. Many of the far and populist right politicians declare themselves champions of gay and lesbian rights and women’s rights against the forces of radical islam and alot of them are very pro environment and get alot of the working class vote.
I dont see how you have society like copenhagen if you have large scale immigration, you end up like american cities with massive economic inequality, gentrification and ghettos and economic and racial segregation , poor mass transit etc.
It would be interesting to see a european style right wing/populist party with socially liberal values in america but the two party system in America pretty much leaves us these wretched two parties and choices
My sister became an Australian citizen 20 years ago and has been a hyper-critical sh*t talker about the US - her native country - literally since the day she got there. She's entirely incapable of focusing on her own flawed government, however. Ugh. A real jewel to spend occasional holidays with.
I have Canadian relatives that are a bit like that too.
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.
) is to intercept boats attempting to offload illegal immigrants. There's no such thing as sanctuary cities, and "border force" wouldn't roll in the military. What rubbish.
