I don’t think it’s unreasonable. If a would be immigrant declared their love for fascism or some other totalitarian form of government I’d be pleased as punch to keep them the hell away.
@DemonTree while it’s certainly possible for a country to be overwhelmed, politcally, by a super surge of immigrants, I don’t believe it is a significant risk. There are always tradeoffs to be made when making decisions. There are, however, immediate dangers to a restrictive immigration policy, particularly in regards to refugees. And immediate benefits to a relaxing of restrictions. We can figure out the politics later.
I realize that as a cis hetero white male American there’s not a lot of downside for me. But I believe the benefits do outweigh the liabilities here for everyone.
And you apparently believe that one of the values of immigrants, as a class, is that they “literally enjoy seeing others suffer and die”. If that’s not ascribing sociopathy to them, then I don’t know what it is.
No, some other people here are claiming that is true of half of Americans as a group. I don’t believe it and I think anyone who does is a bigot. Is that clear enough for you?
In a country the size of America, it’s much less of a concern. But I think in all countries people would be less worried about taking refugees if it was a temporary thing, helping out people affected by some natural disaster or war with the expectation they will eventually go back home. Otherwise the need is very nearly limitless.
As for these people who just want to see others suffer, I don’t believe they exist in significant numbers in any country, and that includes America. But for those who do, it’s a rather strange and inconsistent attitude to talk about how terrible Trump-voting Americans are for the US, but welcome in eg, Bolsonaro-voting Brazilians with open arms.
Well, the cliché would be for me to start off by saying it’s not exactly brain surgery, so let’s maybe start there: if one guy is, say, an accomplished surgeon with no criminal record, and another has no special skills but does have a couple of convictions for armed robbery or whatever, then I’d hope your call would be the same as mine: the first guy would have a pretty easy time making a case that he’ll be a productive member of society hereabouts, and the second, eh, not so much. And, per the reinventing-the-wheel cliché, don’t we already have a temporary work visa program built around the idea that we say, meh, if you pay us a fee and stay out of trouble while you’re here, then after a while maybe we’ll review your work history and, who knows, maybe it’ll make sense to renew your status, but, well, maybe not, y’know? And isn’t there room for the idea of student visas, where (a) one guy comes here and gets lackluster grades in a field of study that leaves potential employers unimpressed, and so he heads home before his student visa expires; but (b) another guy earns high marks as some kind of computer genius, such that American businesses fall all over themselves to make him job offers while asking to please file paperwork on his behalf so the government will let him stay?
So, yeah: if you can make a case that you’ll have a comparatively easy time finding work — you know, as part of a plausible claim that granting you citizenship will probably result in us getting a law-abiding taxpayer who contributes more than he costs — then, well, that seems like the way to bet; and, again, if we feel Good-But-Not-Great about a guy, then we can hedge our bets with a Guess-Check-And-Revise trial period.
That seems workable to me; but if you have an idea you think would net us better results, then, hey, run it by me and maybe I’ll drop this for that.
As for refugees, it’s my understanding that we cap it at certain number of people per year, and that until we hit that number we let folks in according to whether they have — what’s the turn of phrase? — “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”, or some such. And I’m — okay with that, I guess? Figure we debate whether to raise or lower the cap based on how things are going, and maybe we come up with a different answer when we’re thriving in the best of times than when we’re coping with a pandemic, but, hey, that’s representative democracy for you.
Not in my experience, although that dates back a while, so maybe it is different. Several times I took a train from Switzerland that crossed into France with utterly superficial passport inspection (none the crap you get crossing into the US by train which I have done frequently: "where are you going, why, how long are you staying, do you have any drugs on you, let me see the prescription, etc.) and then to Luxembourg and Belgium with no controls. Return trips were similar; passport inspection crossing into Switzerland, otherwise nothing. On one occasion, I took a train from Paris to Amsterdam, passing through Belgium. Again nothing.
US border control isn’t always very tight either, to be honest. You hear a lot of horror stories, but the truth is that millions of people a year (well, in most years) cross the border with little more than a perfunctory look at a passport.
The point Stranger is making is that all real countries have border control. Border control des not mean you close it off or subject everyone crossing it to a body cavity search; it doesn’t even necessarily mean you check passports. It simply means that a sovereign nation exerts any degree of control over the border suitable to its cost-benefit analysis of the appropriate level of control.
Yeah, Belgium does not currently require you go through any sort of control at all if you’re coming in from France, except perhaps in some strange circumstance. But that’s part of an arrangement they signed onto as a sovereign nation; I’d sure as hell have to show my passport if I flew from Toronto to Brussels, and they’re just trusting the guys in Frankfurt or Paris to do the same on their behalf. And they certainly keep an eye on their borders to some extent, even if they didn’t harass you and kind of kept their surveillance quiet. Those imaginary lines matter.
From a few days ago.
The U.S. will have to learn to adjust to this reality as well as with issues like populationa agin.
“News” from a Russian state-controlled video news agency?
Pijijapan is over 1700 km away from the US border. Sounds like a Mexican problem to me.
Forgive me if this has been touched upon already, I only read about halfway thru the thread (I’m sorry, time constraints). But has Sweden been touched upon? There are a couple of immigration/societal issues interwoven in the current struggles of that country entering into this globalized world we now reside in.
One is the maintenance of their very generous social safety net, while at the same time ostensibly maintaining a very porous border. In my understanding of things, a very generous social safety net and social welfare system cannot coexist with the most generous of open-arm borders.
Two is the nature of a large chunk of the immigration to the country (and this is a aspect I’m not as sold on so if I’m in error I welcome correction). This is by no means a problem unique to Sweden, btw, it is going on all over Europe to a greater or lesser extent (or EU). I’m just focusing on Sweden because it’s what I’ve read most about.
Now, I’m not going all Bobby Jinhdal and saying Immigration without Assimilation is just Invasion, that’s a preposterous notion and I’m mostly repeating it here to lighten my words (
) and because it’s fun to say, it rolls off the tongue. But what is it, Somalian immigrants who have, in large numbers, immigrated to Sweden and just set up communities totally closed off from the rest of Swedish society, culture, populace and everyday life. And I’m in a hurry so I can’t expound on this issue like I wanted to but I trust it will be thoroughly critiqued and torn apart by greater minds than me. That’s why I finally joined the ranks of the non-lurkers here. Learning from passive reading is great and I’ve learned so much but I developed a hankering for more interactive learning. So I’m an active doper now. Yay!.
I’ll be Bach!
I don’t understand your point: are you claiming that the video is fake news?
The point is clear-Your source is highly suspect.
There are some more details here:
This group is larger than most of the previous unsuccessful caravans, and many of its members claim that they do not seek to cross into the United States. Instead, their stated goal is to come to Mexico City and negotiate the government’s requirement that they remain in Chiapas, Mexico’s poorest state, as they await long-delayed decisions on their asylum applications.
I get this feeling that the movement is towards North America, which includes Mexico, and it’s easier to get to the U.S. from Mexico.
In what way is it suspect given the point that the same news is reported in other outlets? Would the same video from another outlet help?
