It was only a matter of time before someone started a thread on this subject, and seeing as I am in the middle of this, I think I am the one to do it. So, what is you opinion on the whole immigration debaucle currently going on in the US. (NOTE: this does not just apply to the US, residents of other countries are free to voice their oppinions.) edited for spelling
I was just going to type that you big smelly poo. Anyway, what do you mean you're right in the middle of it? Are you an immigrant or a cop working on border patrol?
Yes I know I spelt immigration wrong. And as for being in the middle of it, I mean that I live in a city where 30% to 40% of my fellow residenst are either immigrants or the children of immigrants. Also, one of the students at my school was recently arrested for atending an anti-immegration reform rally (he cut class to go).
Okay, so where would you draw the line? 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 40 years? What if one of the Canadians managed to sneak in and hide away for 20 years, would she be all right to stay then?
I am not saying anyone shouldn't be allowed to stay. (my personal belief on the issue is that anyone who is willing to pay taxes and be a productive member of society should be welcomed with open arms.) I am just saying that new bills in Congress would effect a sizable part of my community. Edited for clarity and spelling
There are two of them: one in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate. The House bill would tighten up boarder security, (some congressmen have even proposed building a wall between the US and Mexico) and make it a felony to be in the country illegally. Also it would impose severe fines on any buisiness owners found to be imploying illegal immigrants The Senate bill would grant amnasty to illegal immegrants who have been in the country for more than 5 years (provided they pay a $2000 fine) and allow them to become citizens in 2 years if they pay another $2000 and learn English. They would be required to pay taxes in the mean time. Edit: change county to country
Well I don't think building a 'Maginot line' would do a lot of good, other than make a few anti-immigrants feel a bit happier while they were building it. There's plenty of other ways into a country, they only use that route at the moment because it's the easiest - making it a little harder wont make a lot of difference. The $2000 thing might work if you have a job and enough time to save the money, it will give you a sense of belonging and a reason to protest against all the immigrants coming in.
[quote:294b978dd8="Maljonic"]Well I don't think building a 'Maginot line' would do a lot of good, other than make a few anti-immigrants feel a bit happier while they were building it.[/quote:294b978dd8] I could not agree more.
Quoth, most of us here aren't from the US, not to speak of California, so details on the situation and the bills you are talking about might be helpful to see your points. Edit - Crosspost with Mal. ReViewing the situation of my own country: Decades ago, the governments invited people in as guest workers, but as people say these days, they called for workers, and humans came. They stayed - most of them - because after building an existence for two decades or longer, you don't just drop it all and leave because that's what the government of the country you payd your taxes to had initially in mind with you. It was also government policy to refuse them any kind of integration, and in the big cities, several suburbs are now paying the price. You can be born here, and absolve all your school career here, you still do not get a German pass port. A friend of mine born and grown up here just like me still had to get a visum regularly as a young grown up. I've seen plenty of smart kids being denied acces to the grammar school because of their flaws in German spelling, no matter what else they were good at. No, of course, it is not "that simple", but there was no integration policy at all to speak of, and what was expected to become of that? The recent discussion of suburbs where sixty percents of some first grades at school don't speak German, though, let us forget that a huge part of those former "guest workers" children is integrated, in a way (not necessarily the way Merkel dreams of, but hey, even I would not fit that schedule). There are areas in the economy that would break down without them. They have and create (!) jobs. For those immigrants recently arriving -say, the last decades- Germany had a relatively liberal immigration law that has been striktened (?) 11 years ago. It's strict enough for my account. When meeting with the older member of my family, we often discuss about this. My husband one day asked an elderly realtives who was saying along the lines "Too many of'em", how much per cent she was guessing? "Uh - ten!" she guessed. That would make 8 millions. "Sorry, it's about two." - "Can't be! You see them everywhere!" was the reply. The problem is: We will need immigrants during the next decades - say, from in fifty years on, we will really, reallly need them. And this time, we should expect humans to start with, humans with a background. If they are willing to become citizens of this state, they can keep as much of their background as they want to. What we need is a realistic and constructive policy about those people in our country who didn't arrive yet in our society, and seeing both sides of it.* I don't think our biggest problems derive from the number of people arriving here. You can't start petitions against every mosque to be built, keep families sepearate from each other, and denie people citzenshio even after decades unless they have a German granny somewhere, and then wonder why after three generations those groups - or part of those people- radicalize and refuse integration. If you keep someone out of society, don't be surprised if he or she creates his niches outside of it. *The equivalent of this discussion in Germany is not circling around, but picking up cases like this one - three brothers killing their sister because she insisted on her Western, indipendent lifestyle. It is inexcusable. Those guys should have gotten life sentence, but didn't. It is not entirely inexplainable, though, how the environment that made this murder possible came into being.. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1969306,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1124-rdf
Er... I've been only following the issue with half an ear (shame on my first-generation immigrant head!!!), but I just read in Newsweek magazine that the House bill (wall along the border, turns illegal immigrants into felons) has been PASSED... So far, these are the arguments I've heard FOR such a bill to be implemented: - illegal immigrants still have access to state services, like free schools and emergency health care, so they're a drain on the economy - lack of strict immigration laws makes our country vulnerable to terrorists sneaking inside - illegals work for measley wages - WAY below the state minimum - and thus take jobs away from citizen-workers. (Plus, they tend to live in squalor) - because illegals refuse to assimilate, citizen-Americans occasionally wake up and find their neighborhood - the one that they grew up in, and that remained unchanged for generations, - suddenly transformed into Little Mexico, where no one understands English and everything smells like tacos. I agree with Mal et all, that the wall along the border is a silly idea . People will still continue to sneak through, unless we do a USSR thing, and surround the whole country (Canadian border, too!) with barbed wire and watchtowers! Might as well give the Statue of Libery an M-16 instead of a torch. I wish there was a way - for all I know, there IS one, it's just not being considered for one reason or another, - to allow foreign workers to come and go as they please, provided they register at the border and do not commit any crimes (murder included, "honor killing" be damned!) on the American soil. I'm even warming up to the Senate plan, although 4,000 dollars is a LOT to ask of your average mexican migrant laborer, currently earning a dollar a day, or something ridiculous like that. ...But then again, I'd also revamp the current welfare (state-support of those unable to work) system, that would demand some kind of debt-repayment for most cases of welfare-receivers. I.E. people would receive assistance only for as long as they're thoroughly disabled (paralyzed, burdened down with a newborn, tied to a ventilator etc). Once they're up and moving, maybe a social worker would help them find a job - any job! - that they could do, and in the meantime receive additional assistance. Until they find an actual job that they like, and which pays enough to support them and their families... And this is why I'm not entrusted with any social programs As for the whole assimilation thing - I believe that immigrants should learn English and respect American laws. That's IT!!! Other than that, it's a freaking free country, populated by God-knows-how-many cultures and subcultures. There is no one set dressing standard, or cousine standard, or religion standard... As long as you're not hurting anyone, you should be free to dress/eat/behave as you please, whether you're Mexican, Chinese, Russian or a Goth Pagan vegan edited: replaced "McCain plan" with "Senate plan"
I chose the third option, I believe our immigration rules have been and still are racist and sometimes cruel and that we should be more open to all peoples. I do think that if you come to a country to live you should actually learn the language and at least obey the actual laws and it isn't too much to ask that you embrace at least some of the local culture, otherwise why even bother to immigrate? I don't think being an American demands giving up cultural identity and the policy of religious freedom means you don't have to give up your religion (you might have trouble getting elected to public office if you are an admitted vampire or witch but you can be a professional wrestler or action hero and become a governor). The whole concept of countries and nationalities is a fairly recent developement in human history and it may become obsolete as the global community strengthens. It may just be another quaint folkway and I'm not convinced that would be a bad thing. On the other hand no community can withstand being invaded by huge numbers of people and no community should be able to foist "undesirables" on other communities. We neeed to be able to maintain order and safety or life becomes unbearable for everyone. Given the fact that NAFTA exists I do not understand the reasoning behind the "Mexican wall". I don't think there are jobs that Americans won't do that immigrants will. but I do think that immigrants are taken advantage of and that companies who hire illegal immigrants and pay them sub standard-wages should be prosecuted.
When most people hear the word Assimilation, they probably think of something along the lines of The Borg on Start Trek ("You will be assimilated").They think assimilation means that one group of people enters a new area and adopts the traditions of that culture and forsakes their own. What I think of of when I hear assimilation is the opposite. I think of assimilation as when a group of people enters a new area and makes their own contribution to that regions culture. Think of the Irish and St. Patricks Day. Or the Japanese and Karate.
I'm fully in favor of imigration... that's why I got the fuck out of america and have no intentions of moving back. thank god for imigration!
Tamyra raises an interesting notion that some American somewhere will do any job that an illegal immigrant would do. Maybe, but I don't know how many would want to be migrant farm workers. But the bigger issue is pay. One solution that I heard is that if you remove the illegal immigrants from their jobs, you can put the people on Welfare then. But the money issue pops up again, as well as forced relocation. Most people think that if you work here, you should pay taxes. But then, if they pay taxes, should the be represented? It's a conundrum. Many illegals will send money back to their familes in the homeland. Shoot, many 1st generation immigrants do period. While 1 Euro might buy more than a dollar will, a dollar will buy more than a peso. Even getting "slave wages" are a great bonus to the family left behind. Rent is minimized by living in overcrowded squalor. It's unregulated capitalism at it's best. Now, taking an "unskilled" job, like say janitor and looking at CA median income http://www.payscale.com/salary-survey/vid-16390/fid-6886 which is about $9/hour. Would this number go down if immigration was allowed to flow freely? Ca state minimum is 6.75 except in San Franciso? I certainly don't have an answer at this time. Part of me says "Give us your poor, your tired" and remembers the historical lessons of INNA et al. While another part of me wonders about the workers that we already have and their futures. Is there an economist in the house? More thoughts later, I'm sure.
I voted for option 2 - I have always objected to border controls (and excise taxes) whether of people, animals or goods - and this is not just because I am strictly speaking an immigrant myself - I am British but have lived in Belgium for 29 years and intend to spend the rest of my life here, even though I do not intend to take Belgian nationality - given the European Union, I would gain no benefits - I could already even have a vote here, but have never registered simply because Belgian politics get so confused with the whole linguistic divide added to normal Left/Right distinctions that I am better off as a foreigner keeping out of it - besides, I believe voting is compulsory here if one is registered, and I don't want to be that tied down - but the natural consequence of this is that I don't feel entitled to complain about the Belgian government (well, except possibly in private to other Brits! ) However, I am not a great fan of multiculturalism (OK, this is from someone who is heavily involved in the English-language amateur theatre in Brussels - but we don't force it on anybody, Belgians or ex-pats - and we comply with Belgian law over our premises and productions) - the extreme examples are: 1/ So-called "honour killings" (a somewhat misplaced idea of "honour" that refuses to allow for the possibilty of individual disagreement - thinking for oneself rather than simply following a preset thought-pattern passed on by others should surely be honoured - by the way, I note that this custom is not limited to Islam - I believe that it is more a cultural than religious thing - it seems to happen with people from the Indian subcontinent as well, not necessarily just Muslims) 2/ The rabble-rousers (in this case usually Muslim) who preach hatred against all "unbelievers" while resident in a country full of those "unbelievers" and protected by their laws. So what I am really saying here is that people should have freedom of movement, including all their pets and goods, but should then respect the laws of the country in which they settle.
Pixel, I presume that when you say you're not a great fan of 'multiculturalism', that you are refering to groups originating from different cultures that isolate themselves and refuse to live by, or respect, the laws of the country that they now live in? You seem a reasonable chap, so I can't imagine you would be strongly anti people keeping in touch with the traditions and culture of wherever they originated from - at the shallowest end of this, my father celebrates Burns Night :roll: - as long as they respect that they DO live in another country, whose laws should come first. Please tell me if this is not the case, I should hate to put words in your mouth. On another point, I have to say I find it quite terrifying that someone who reads Pratchett could have chosen the first option on the poll. Maybe whoever did so could explain their reasons behind this?
Employers A and B each own shops. Employer A hires workers who are in the country legally, pays them market level wages, pays employee income tax, social security and disability taxes, and provides health insurance. Employer B hires illegal immigrants, pays them less than the minimum wage, pays no taxes and provides no benefits of any kind. The workers don't complain because they are afraid of being deported if the authorities find out they're working. Employer A has to include employee costs in the costs of the items he sells in his shops, so that he can still stay in business. Employer B can sell things at low cost, and still make a good profit, because his overhead is much lower. Which employer do you think gets the most customers and stays in business longest?
Ah, you were refering to illegal immigrants. I agree that that's a messy and difficult area, and if the title of the thread had been specifically ILLEGAL immigrants, then I'm sure I'd have voted differently.........not quite sure how I [i:2bc1ef4f3b]would[/i:2bc1ef4f3b] have voted actually..... Thanks for clearing that up, but I presume you don't feel that way about legal immigrants - as these would have been hired by Employer A in your scenario?
[quote:f02093b9f6="Darth_Bemblebee"]Pixel, I presume that when you say you're not a great fan of 'multiculturalism', that you are refering to groups originating from different cultures that isolate themselves and refuse to live by, or respect, the laws of the country that they now live in? You seem a reasonable chap, so I can't imagine you would be strongly anti people keeping in touch with the traditions and culture of wherever they originated from - at the shallowest end of this, my father celebrates Burns Night :roll: - as long as they respect that they DO live in another country, whose laws should come first. Please tell me if this is not the case, I should hate to put words in your mouth. On another point, I have to say I find it quite terrifying that someone who reads Pratchett could have chosen the first option on the poll. Maybe whoever did so could explain their reasons behind this?[/quote:f02093b9f6] Yes, your presumption in your first sentence is exactly what I mean- your father celebrating Burns Night (which happens here in Brussels where there is a sizeable Scottish community) is on the same level as the English-language amateur theatre which I mentioned earlier - I presume that wherever your father is, he doesn't go around on Burns Night forcing people to come and celebrate with him - even if they are Scottish - in the same way we don't go round collecting our theatre audiences by force (we seem to be on a roll at the moment anyway and are actually having to turn people away or slip in extra seats not covered by our insurance until we renew it in the next week or so!) I feel that one of the most important freedoms, possibly [i:f02093b9f6]the[/i:f02093b9f6] most important freedom should be "The freedom to go where the law is different" - so people taking advantage of that freedom should be protected from those who want to take their cultural attitudes with them wherever they go, despite any irritating "local laws".
Moving a lot I know how hard it is to fit into different communities and cultures. Particularly when it's something as different as Scottish and Indonesian - for example. I know for a fact that to ask anyone to completely integrate into society is next to imposible and small communities of cultures are inevitable among immigrants. From an ex-pat point of view I can say the one thing that bothers me is that we tent to create an 'ex-pat community' and not really adopt as much of the local ways as we should. Then again - thinking logically - it's such a different way of life that it is not likely to happen and often the places you are among prefer to stick you in a community and ignore it. There are people I know that will spend their entire time in different cultures looking around American style malls and shopping centres for all things of their culture and refuse to eat local foods etc. They look specifically for places that sell British/American food and don't stray any further. This really bothers me because I think part of living - even visiting - another country is getting to know and understand the way of life there and then trying to adapt slightly towards it. Now I may be speaking about ex-pats but it is a similar situation with immigrants. They are in a completely different culture and need to repect the way of life of those around them and try to adopt some of their traditions. My opinnion is that you are not in your own country anymore and can shout about your beliefs and culture till the cows come home but unless you are aware of the culture of the community that have welcomed you and made an effort to understand and respect it then you may as well go back where you came from. Now people complain about immigrants draining the economy but in America the immigrants - although initially taking a certain amount to find their feet - benifit the society and give more in taxes than they recieve. You can hardly complain. The way the world is today if you are unable to accept other cultures to a certian degree then it is your problem not theirs. People are travelling further and setting roots in more and more different countries. It's simply a new global culture.
[quote:a0f8e79fb9="Darth_Bemblebee"]Ah, you were refering to illegal immigrants. I agree that that's a messy and difficult area, and if the title of the thread had been specifically ILLEGAL immigrants, then I'm sure I'd have voted differently.........not quite sure how I [i:a0f8e79fb9]would[/i:a0f8e79fb9] have voted actually..... Thanks for clearing that up, but I presume you don't feel that way about legal immigrants - as these would have been hired by Employer A in your scenario?[/quote:a0f8e79fb9] Why would anyone have a problem with someone entering another country legally -- meaning that they would work (or at least be looking for a job or in training or education), pay taxes, be accountable to legal authorities, etc? As for whether they stick with their own kind or assimilate into the larger culture, I think that's a matter of personal choice; it's to their own advantage to assimilate if they want to be more financially successful. Not being able to speak the language well or being able to understand certain traditions limits your career choices. I think immigrants should be given the opportunity to learn the language, learn about the culture, etc., but if they refuse to take advantage of it they should suffer the consequences.
See, that's what confused me about the law, they plan to prosecute [i:c02d86d776]illegal[/i:c02d86d776] immigrants, the clues in the name - does it mean they weren't prosecuted before (if they were caught of course)?
Precisely!! I didn't understand either..... It's being protested against on the grounds that it will [i:987b4e3ed2]automatically[/i:987b4e3ed2] make illegal immigrants criminals, but personally I thought they were already before. Maybe they themselves couldn't be prosecuted, just deported. After all, if you come from some peasant village from the back of beyond somewhere, and you give some official-looking chap a huge amount of money, you might not be aware there's anything wrong with that - especially if you're confused and scared and don't know the language. I don't know what penalties those who employ illegal immigrants get, but I feel sure they should be stronger. (There's a determinedly ignorant statement for you :roll: ) [quote:987b4e3ed2]Why would anyone have a problem with someone entering another country legally -- meaning that they would work (or at least be looking for a job or in training or education), pay taxes, be accountable to legal authorities, etc? [/quote:987b4e3ed2] Lord knows. Many do though, whether through fear, ignorance or racism (admittedly the same things really, when you get down to it) we can but guess. [quote:987b4e3ed2]As for whether they stick with their own kind or assimilate into the larger culture, I think that's a matter of personal choice; it's to their own advantage to assimilate if they want to be more financially successful. Not being able to speak the language well or being able to understand certain traditions limits your career choices. I think immigrants should be given the opportunity to learn the language, learn about the culture, etc., but if they refuse to take advantage of it they should suffer the consequences.[/quote:987b4e3ed2] Well said.
Please don't get me started... This is the weird stance the Australian Government has taken. You know it wouldn't be so bad if the processing off-shore was efficient but we have people in immigration detention centres here who have been stuck there for 5-6 years. Thats YEARS people, simply for arriving illegally. Thats the point of the Australian and American laws, they are dealing with ILlegal immigrants, not the assimilation of legal migrant populations. These are different issues and should be addressed separately. Now the US has a massive illegal migrant worker population that come over the border through Mexico. In a lot of industry sectors they could not function profitably with out this source of labour. However, the xenophobic and protectionist instincts of a people and its government always rise when it comes to illegal workers. In the US they have always been illegal but with no legal redress if they wanted to become legal citizens, the debate is should this be provided or not. And it looks like the not is winning (although this might shoot Geogie in the foot, as his supporters in industry are thos industries that rely on illegal workers)... Anyway, the Australian case is quite different we get a mere couple of hundred each year. Why? Cos we're an island and its bloody hard to get to, but they still come. We currently have a policy of mandatory detention in such salubrious locations as Baxter Detention Centre, if your wondering why the background is all brown its because Baxter is on the edge of the Australian desert, and its nnot a nice place to be. WHile I think there needs to be some control, or monitoring of who is entering and leaving a country (even for criminal reasons, neverlone health concerns) but this is just nuts. As to assimilation, groups of ethnically similar people in foreign countries will always congregate together. It was one of the more depressing things when i lived in Malaysia was that the Fins all hung out together, a group from Melbourne all hung out together. As an interloper on a different program I hung out with locals and I had the best time of my life, but its more that I was forced into a situation where I was alone, rather than with Australians the whole time. People will always gravitate the familiar unless given the opportunity to expand their horizons. Quoth you say that 40-60% of your area is immigrants and some make no effort to assimilate. Have you made the effort to go out of your way to meet them or talk to them? If we don't make the effort to meet them why do we expect them to make the effort to meet us? Because they are in our town? I don't think thats a good reason, I think you can get upset when immigrants don't make the effort to meet you when you've made the effort to meet them. Only then can you say they have rejected your hospitality, but until that hospitality is offered your just being a sour puss. I'm going to get off my high horse and go back to being mildly annoyed and cynical with the world, because the anger this issue raises in me is not sustainable...
I voted for the third answer. A large part of the immigrant problem in the US started over fifty years ago, closer to eighty years, in fact. At that time immigration laws were passed that established quotas that were blatantly nationalist, if not outright racist. At first glance, I can see why people in the US assume that the people of Mexico should simply apply for a work visa, or even a green card. After all, if all they want is a better life, go for the legal way and don't live with any fear of deportation. All they have to do is apply, right? Myth: simply apply; they will send you the documents and you can acquire that super sized TV, surround sound, two SUVs in the garage, and all of the other "essentials" of American life. You know, that "better life". Reality: if you're Mexican and apply for a work visa, or even better, a green card, the wait is over ten years before it will show up, and that is if you have a family member, who is American, to sponsor you. Oh, and if you are doing this because your family in Mexico is living in a tiny home with two rooms for the six of you, a dirt floor, and no running water....well, accept your destiny, and we will pray for you, of course. In 10-15 years, when you finally can find work to help your parents, they may be dead, but so be it. Consider, how desparate would you need to be to walk for three days through the desert, knowing you may very possibly die, but also knowing that there's a good possiblity that you will find hard work that will let you send money back to your family. That US money translates into enough Mexican pesos that your family can finally move out of total abject poverty. Myth: Mexicans are only coming up here to take our jobs, because they will work hard at jobs other people have turned down, and are going to be living off of us, on welfare, because they are so lazy. Well, this isn't so much myth as it is shattered logic. I truly feel the answer is improved laws that allows for migrant work to come here legally, and then return to their homes, which many of them would prefer, or to immigrate eventually if they find work that they like and want to be here more permanently. If we are seriously concerned about countering terrorists, change the laws so that people can come up here through legal means. Then, the only ones trying to sneak over the borders will be the ones who shouldn't be here. This will also pretty effectively hinder the criminals who have been engaging in "people trafficking", charging money to cram 25 people into the back of a van, or even holding them for ransom on the US side of the border. I guess I take this personally. On both sides of my family, we were in very hard circumstances at home, and had to come to the US to provide the basics, like food, shelter, etc. Oh, and I'm not Mexican. I'm Swedish, English, and Irish. As far as the workers who are here now, from what I have seen, the majority are making at least minimum wages, and often making far above that. Obviously, farm workers are running into something completely different, but those who are doing factory work, construction, etc., are making much more than they would in Mexico, Central American countries, and South America. Just as an example, the construction workers I know are making $10./hour, starting wages. It's skilled labor, but they are trained on the job. Granted, there is no health insurance, but that is the case for everyone, regardless of position in the company or where they were born. (And this is true of a lot of jobs in the US anymore, much to our shame. Health costs for too many Americans have skyrocketed, and so many have no insurance to help.) Being an undocumented alien in the US is a misdemeanor offence. (So is driving over the speed limit.) The bill that has been passed by the House would make it a felony offense. They would also make it a felony to aid someone who is undocumented, whether by hiring them, or just providing them with necessities. Frankly, this makes me want to hang black crepe on the Statue of Liberty!
Well said, Janible! Especially the part about the "legal" option not always available to people who are willing to brave death and desert in order to help their families out of poverty!
[quote:b4277b3dfd="QuothTheRaven"]I am studying their language.[/quote:b4277b3dfd] Sorry Quoth I didn't mean to signal you out personally, you had made your views on the laws fairly clear as not anti-immigration. I used your figure as an example of the proportion of people in some areas, and the following 'you' was a general 'you' meaning everyone, not 'you' as in 'you'. And now I am going to go and have my brain matter untied.
The phrase "illegal immigrant" keeps turning up in this discussion - in my opinion this should be a meaningless phrase - people should have full freedom of movement to any country in the world, whether to settle or simply pass through - there is a case at the moment of a guy called Karl Bushby who has spent seven years so far on an attempt to walk from South America to Britain on foot (How he expects to do the last bit I don't know, unless the people in charge of the Channel tunnel take pity on him and allow him to use the service tunnel which I believe parallels the train tunnels) who has been stopped, arrested and is threatened with deportation by Russia simply for not getting the right stamp in his passport when he arrived - and since a deportation verdict would ban him from Russia for 5 years, and there is no route that he can follow without going through Russia, this destroys his entire project. Where is the justice in that? This is the news report
I voted for option 4, the mysterious 'other', reason being in the UK we're relatively very open with regards to who we let into the country to live and work. Mostly due to a laughably out of touch immigration process that seems entirly unable to cope with the sheer number of people entering the country. I happily confess a blissful ignorance with regards to the process of entering the USA so wont comment on that but when you have things like this happening: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4856848.stm ...then your left with the feeling that some curiousity and selectiveness over who enters your country cant be a bad thing. Blind bureaucracy as in the Russian case is one thing but legal background checks are relavent and entirly reasonable I believe. So in general I have no problem with immigrants, but a country should have some choice over who enters it or you end up with stories like the article above. And that was scarily close to where I live, I shudder to think if that'd been my sister or girlfriend. Beyond the scope of the extreme negative immigrants though, it's a boon to an aging society like English to have people of working ages entering the country. I like the new Dutch idea of confronting potential migrants with tests and video's of what the country is like because at the end of the day, your choosing to move there, so why should the destination country have to alter in any way? Surely by example of you moving there it must be a better place to live than where you've moved from and so should embrace the culture you arrive into. As the old saying goes, when in Rome etc.
[quote:0331b0e644="janible"]Frankly, this makes me want to hang black crepe on the Statue of Liberty![/quote:0331b0e644] I think one of the best ways I have heard the immigratons situation (Hay, it rhymes) described was on the popular American Legal drama [i:0331b0e644]Law & Order[/i:0331b0e644] in which one of the characters commented: "It is almost as if someone put out a sign reading: 'give us you poor, your tired, your huddled masses'"
Immigration is a good thing. I have no problem with anyone immigrating to the US from whatever country, continent, or planet they happen to be from. I do have a problem with illegal immigration. Why are there immigration laws? Pixel says that there should be none, but I disagree. They may need to be relaxed in certain cases, but they do need to be there. There have been some outbreaks of different deseases recently in the US. I can't remember which two I heard about recently, but both were traced back to a small community of illegal immigrants. Some of the countries that these people come from have serious problems with diseases and epidemics that the US has not had in decades. I live in an agricultural town in the south. We have quite a few illegal aliens here that work for different places. I have two differing opinions about illegal immigration. One is empathic towards them. If I had the choice to stay and live in a hell-hole or illegally cross a desert and hope that I could find a job, I would. The other half of me thinks that logically there is going to be a serious problem with complete open boarders. Vicente Fox, Mexico's president, condemns the US for not harboring more of its own people. Why are they coming here in the first place? Because the aristocrats in Mexico that are governing the country are so corrupt that they are killing their own country. He never does seem to remember that Mexico's southern border is much more heavily guarded than is ours. What pisses me off is when these illegal aliens not only cross over ILLEGALLY, but they also tell us that they will "March today, vote tomorrow." Yet half the rallies are in Spanish because so little of the demonstrators can speak English. If I was to move to Germany, Sweden, Russia, Isreal, or wherever, I would expect to have to learn the language. Even if I was going there to just work, I would still have to learn the language. That is the first and most important step of assimilation. It doesn't mean that I can never speak English again, so my heritage and culture is still intact. It does mean that I can learn more about my new (even if temporary) home. On a side note, because I just remembered this, they have found several young girls that were raped and left for dead by either other illegal aliens travelling with them or by the coyotes that are supposed to transfer them to the US. I've got a lot more to say on this subject, but my head hurts and I'm sleepy. Anyway, I do think that there needs to be a change in immigration policy here in the US, but I do not agree with a complete open boarder. And I don't really like the fact that we are probably going to give amnesty to people who are "just trying to give their families a better life." The main problem with that statement is that it is often used by theives after robbing someone. While I can sympathise with it, it is still illegal and wrong.
[quote:944a885fcc="redneck"]Yet half the rallies are in Spanish because so little of the demonstrators can speak English. [/quote:944a885fcc] Recently, A group of hispanic students at my school organized an asembly to discuss the issue of Immegrigration. Half of the speakers gave their presentations in spanish. While I (sort of) sympathize with their cause, I do not think they are going to reach anyone new that way.
