stella41b
Posts: 4258
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: SW London (UK)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Stella, that's nice but your suppositions all result in everyone being able to come to the U.S.
Now where do you get that idea? This wasn't what I was trying to say at all.
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
In 2006 we took in more than 3 million people from around the world legally.
We simply can't continue like that.
I agree with you. The US supposition that I would settle illegally is ridiculous, and if I were to emigrate to the US (please note the conditional) I would be self-employed and working for myself. The last thing I would be thinking of would be to enter the US employment market, which I would assume is just as heavily saturated as here in Europe. But I'm not most people, and I assume here that the majority of immigrants to the US require some form of employment.
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
That's like adding a city the size of Philadelphia and suburbs every year!
My point exactly. Doesn't this underline the importance of a complete revision of immigration requirements and laws? Don't you think for example that the Green Card Lottery is outdated?
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
And you're right about Western countries and refugees and asylum seekers, we've (Western countries) been doing it for decades now, it's time that we got a break and other countries step up to the plate!
I've got an even better idea which relates to Third World poverty. The US and the UK, together with Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa share something which is known as English language culture. For fifty years this culture has been dominant throughout the world. Rather than showering billions of dollars in aid on Third World countries maybe we need to be setting up cultural and small business projects in Third World countries to teach these people to fish for themselves. I'm talking about rebuilding societies and communities from the bottom up.
I'm not suggesting colonies where we turn up with the Bible and bugger off with their resources, but in setting up projects which directly help people (and not governments) to establish their own communities and societies. If you reduce poverty in these countries, you reduce also the need for such people to emigrate. This in turn reduces the number of refugees and asylum seekers.
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Russia's population is declining, they *need* immigration and refugees and asylum seekers.
Popeye, I'm kind of hoping you're not being 100% serious here. Not everybody was pleased with the fall of communism, not everybody accepted the economic reforms, and the social transformation and upheaval created a lot of organized crime. This organized crime runs right through not just the former Soviet Republics but Eastern Europe. Of course the Russian population is declining, the country has already lost it's middle class, lots of rich businessmen, and you've got people who are either very poor or people who are very rich and who can handle the gangsters many of whom are ex-KGB and ex-military. Corruption is rife. These problems need to be dealt with before anybody is resettled there.
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Look at how crowded England and Germany and even France has become over the last 30 years due to immigration, refugees and asylum seekers!
From a practical point this can't go on much longer.
This is where you're muddying the waters by lumping everyone together, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. I see two clear categories - people that choose to emigrate and people who suddenly need to emigrate because they face danger or some sort of major threat.
There's also another side of the coin. You do actually have Americans, Brits, French, and now more increasingly Germans who also emigrate to other countries. For example in Poland the third largest group of immigrants are Americans after Russians and Ukrainians. This isn't a case of the United States filling up, but the passage of people entering and leaving for a wide variety of reasons.
You do realise also, do you not, that by 2020 or thereabouts the population of people over the age of 60 is projected to exceed that of the population of working adults? You can safely bet that a significant proportion of these people won't have made adequate provisions for their retirement or pensions. Some might have, but what if surprise surprise, all of a sudden it comes out there's no money or return in the pension funds for whatever reason?
Public expenditure aside, who is going to look after these people? Who is going to provide the healthcare, support, and services they need?
I wasn't talking about reducing immigration or increasing it, but reforming it to come up with a system which is simpler, fairer, easier to manage and control. You can't blame the illegal immigrants themselves for the failure of the system, and the current policy of the current administration of suspecting everyone but arbitrarily deciding who gets in and who doesn't is neither fair nor effective. Anyone can come up with documents and papers necessary to get in, and the documents and papers need not be genuine. They can also be fake.
Maybe instead of fighting a war in Iraq and trying to fight terrorism the current administration might have done better putting in more effort to fighting poverty and introducing better reforms for healthcare, welfare and immigration.
Blaming the immigrants themselves doesn't wash. The United States is a sovereign country, it has a Government, its own legislation and the responsibility for passing effective legislation and enforcing it lies squarely with the administration. If you leave immigration law complicated and open to interpretation, be sure that immigrants will interpret it to their benefit. This is human nature. I would suggest a much simpler system which separates the right to remain and residency from visas, work permits and citizenship and have a way for 'aliens' to file for their own residency permits and visas both inside and outside the US. I would suggest relaxing requirements for those who intend to be self-employed or who plan to employ Americans, and also encouraging those who make a significant contribution to American society - through culture, sport, charity work. I would ditch the Green card Lottery altogether. Giving out immediate US citizenship and Green Cards to a quarter of a million people every year willy nilly can only lead to further problems. This shouldn't affect asylum seekers or refugees, if they can get to the States and prove that they had no choice but to arrive there then I feel they should be afforded whatever help is necessary.
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
And people can't blame the West for doing all that we've done over the last 30 or 40 years!
Where's the "thankyou's" for all of that?
Erm, I don't know. Maybe you should ask people like Coca Cola, MacDonalds, Microsoft, Texaco, and all the other corporations who've all done well out of their global markets.
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
All they want is more, more, more.
And this attitude is somehow different to attitudes found in the US or among corporate businessmen?
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Everytime two countries or peoples have a fight we have to take in their refugees and asylum seekers?
Well who was until very recently the greast 'melting pot'? And US foreign policy has nothing to do with this?
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
You mentioned how "poor" Armenia is, that's the real reason for this nonsense continuing, not liberty justice or freedom.
It's not our job to "give" people in foreign countries liberty or justice or freedom , it's their job to take it! Overthrow their governments or do whatever they have to do.
Popeye, poverty in Armenia isn't quite the same as poverty in the States. Trust me. I did also mention that there were other problems, such as ethnic tension, problems with organized crime. Overthrowing the government hasn't really worked has it Popeye? I give Iraq as an obvious example.
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
And it's certainly not our job to lift people in foreign countries out of poverty.
No it isn't, unless there's some sort of immediate danger or threat to these people. I did actually write, did I not, that repatriating someone to the Balkans is okay, because it's safe. People in the Balkans are poor too, but it's generally a safe place to be.
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
"A friend in need is a friend indeed."
True.
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
People around the world need to stop looking to "The West" to solve their problems for them and start taking responsibility for themselves.
True. But then again the States needs to face up to reality and see itself as a former superpower which, like every other country in the West, is becoming a second rate nation struggling to cope with its own social and economic problems. The servicemen have done their best and many have given their lives, and when they do return home the forces should be welcomed home just the same as from any other war. Only Iraq should go down in history as the last time the US played world policeman and used imperialism to try and solve world problems.
One thing which unites the US, the UK, and other English speaking countries with the rest of the world is culture. I myself have shown it can be successfully exported. Therefore I see a better way forward through exporting culture to resolve poverty and end conflicts rather than sending in the troops.
_____________________________
CM's Resident Lyricist
also Facebook
http://stella.baker.tripod.com/
50NZpoints
Q2
Simply Q
|
RE: Immigration law: something's got to give. - 
Profile
. The global network encompasses all countries, and America is a major player (it's always acted that way).
.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread