Who is actively promoting the idea of “de facto open borders”?
Do you associate a more welcoming and rational immigration policy with “de facto open borders”?
What are the criteria that you would use, as an example, to admit immigrants? Aside from known criminal activity, what criteria would you use to deny admission?
I’m just trying to get a handle on where the bulk of disagreement lies.
People who want to promote sanctuary policies and people who want to abolish ICE and people who want to ignore immigration law.
No. Absolutely not. We should have a strictly rational immigration policy. Now what I consider rational might be disputed. We definitely should be welcoming. Adult and child classes in English, civics, and US history should be freely provided. Immigrants should be made to feel valued and welcomed because assimilation is key to future tranquility.
I would like either national or regional quotas for economic migration.
2 questions:
“Are you going to be a boon or a burden to the US of A?”
“Are you going to adhere to all the rules of the US of A?”
If the answer to those are boon and yes, we let them in and let them start working becoming a productive member of society.
If the answer to those is burden or no, they get sent right back.
Boon answers don’t get to collect the US of A’s social safety net? If laws ( we will go with felonies at this point) get broken, they get deported.
Set some term limit, say 5 years (or some other yearly amount determined by others)
So…no refugees at all?
If ICE is as toxic an organization as seems possible from recent news stories, then abolishing the agency and tasking other organizations with its duties is rational, moral, and even necessary for the sake of the country. And it’s not just about the people within the organization – it’s also about perception… if ICE is seen as an American quasi-SS, then we need to disband it and try again. That would really, really harm America, far more than the possibility of a few thousand migrants slipping through the cracks.
Do their kids get to go to public school, or is that a burden?
I disagree. By that criteria the prisons should be emptied, the FBI disbanded, CIA disbanded etc. They all engage in corrupt and immoral acts.
Okay, so no one in this thread, and no one with any serious power. If you happen to see a blogger out there with that position, then you can yell at them.
Would taking those classes count as a burden that would make them ineligible for citizenship?
Why regional? Would you tell immigrants once they are here where they are allowed to live in the country?
You’ll have to define boon and burden. Which are low-wage earners? Which are people who don’t speak English?
There is a lot of wrong on the internet and it’s obviously the in thing to go stamp it out. So I’ll try my best.
A catch-22? I’m not devious. So no. Using roads, fire services, vaccinations, libraries, and necessary education to function as an American citizen are all important things to provide if we have the productivity to do so. Which we clearly do. I definitely don’t see the utility of allowing economic migration without taking steps to ensure smooth assimilation. Ethnic ghettoes and enclaves, especially on border areas, is bad practice.
Regions of the globe. Such as continents or major sections of a continent. Sort of like the US military commands.
For those interested in a discussion about Immigration Policy, I invite you to join the new GD thread.
I’ve always thought the xkcd was backwards. You are not up all night because someone is wrong on the internet. You are up all night because someone on the internet said you were wrong.
That’s fair. There are those out there, however, who would disagree. I think that the reason would be that they do not wish to allow economic migration in the first place, so will work to make it into as bad a practice as possible in order to “prove” that it doesn’t work.
Ah, I thought you mean quotas for where they could settle, not from where they could come. I’m of mixed minds on quotas, as I see more immigration as inherently a good thing, but sure, at some point, there is a limit to what we could handle at a time. If nothing else, I would determine quotas at least partly based on how many people of a country want to leave it.
If you have a country of 100, and only 1 wants to leave, then it doesn’t make sense to give it the same quota of 5 as you give country of 1000 where 100 wants to leave.
Does ICE handle refugee cases?
I imagine that refugees would be handled the way they are now, unless/until a better alternative came to light.
So, you would not ask your questions of refugees?
How likely are refugees going to be a boon? Economically positive.
Is one of the problems with immigration now that there are “Hubs”, for lack of a better word that people are heading towards? I can see how immigration affects those areas at a much greater capacity than say Kansas City , MO. Maybe quotas on areas that we determine we have room and the capacity for more. Otherwise, you might be waiting a much longer time to get to an area that you desire?
You’d be surprised. People from war torn areas can have skills too. Seems strange to think all refugees will be a burden to us.
In the long run, very positive. In the short run, they will likely need to have some level of assistance.
You didn’t answer my question. Would you or would you not ask a refugee if they will be a boon or a burden?
Only if we make similar quotas for people looking to move out of Sumter County.
This is the first question you think of in relation to refugees? Not, “Are they and their families going to be murdered if we send them back to a place where they are being persecuted?”