View Full Version : Something Bad Happened To Me Or Might
It seems the definition of refugee has been watered down over the years to - something bad happened to me or might therefore I am a refugee and deserve to come to the US.
I don't see people in US inner cities applying to other countries because there is a lot of violence where they live. I don't see people from Florida applying to go to another country because they lived through a hurricane.
Your thoughts?
Maybe you need to walk in their shoes to fully understand?
In a word "Hunduras". Maybe read up a bit? From an actual news source? Sigh...............
Maybe you need to walk in their shoes to fully understand?
Most people face bad things at some point in their life especially if they live in poor countries. Should all of these people be allowed in?
In a word "Hunduras". Maybe read up a bit? From an actual news source? Sigh...............
I am pretty shocked at this racist post of yours. You may not like that Central American government but to try to disparage it by spelling it Hun duras as an insult to people of West Asian descent using Hun as a synonym for brutality is wrong, and especially egregious given the current anti-Asian climate with hate crimes and violence including the recent murders in Atlanta. Shame on you!
happystuff
3-21-21, 11:07am
I am pretty shocked at this racist post of yours. You may not like that Central American government but to try to disparage it by spelling it Hun duras as an insult to people of West Asian descent using Hun as a synonym for brutality is wrong, and especially egregious given the current anti-Asian climate with hate crimes and violence including the recent murders in Atlanta. Shame on you!
ROFLOL! Using an old phrase - is this the pot calling the kettle black or what??? Speaking of "shame on you" posts, go back and read numerous past ones of your own.
I can remember being lectured that the United States should not be the world’s policeman. I’m not sure we have the capacity to be the world’s social worker either.
happystuff
3-21-21, 11:38am
I can remember being lectured that the United States should not be the world’s policeman. I’m not sure we have the capacity to be the world’s social worker either.
I actually agree, but in my opinion, that doesn't mean we stand back and not be part of it. The United States is PART of the world and should participate as such (and not necessarily from the "in charge" position). To what degree always seems to be the debate.
iris lilies
3-21-21, 11:41am
I actually agree, but in my opinion, that doesn't mean we stand back and not be part of it. The United States is PART of the world and should participate as such (and not necessarily from the "in charge" position). To what degree always seems to be the debate.
Yes. There are always slots for refugees and the question is how many slots.
I actually agree, but in my opinion, that doesn't mean we stand back and not be part of it. The United States is PART of the world and should participate as such (and not necessarily from the "in charge" position). To what degree always seems to be the debate.
I’ve often thought we’d do well to adopt something like Canada’s policy model. They do a seem to do a nice job of balancing self-interest, self-promotion and humanitarian interests.
I’ve often thought we’d do well to adopt something like Canada’s policy model. They do a seem to do a nice job of balancing self-interest, self-promotion and humanitarian interests.
I see that the current administration is planning to transport our incoming migrants to states near the Canadian border. It would be interesting to see how that nation would react if those migrants decided to violate their border.
Come on, Alan, that has already happened when Trump was elected in 2016, remember? Canada's borders were dealing with many more immigrants crossing the border on foot so dealt with it then; errr, actually, Prime Minister Trudeau announced without consultation with his government that everyone was welcome and then the problems were dealt with by border agencies. Did Canada separate children from their parents and store the children in cages as the US is known to do, no.
Trudeau is not much wiser but maybe has learned a few things that will tell him to keep his mouth shut.
Did Canada separate children from their parents and store the children in cages as the US is known to do, no.
Trudeau is not much wiser but maybe has learned a few things that will tell him to keep his mouth shut.
I'm not sure what Canada did with children as there's no political incentive in the US to report on their tactics, but I do know some of the problems the US ran into regarding children. It seems there was a huge problem with the catch and release system whereby potential immigrants showed up at the border, were processed and then sent on their way with a promise to appear in court at immigration hearings at a later date. The majority of those routinely failed to follow the immigration requirements and did not show up to those mandated court proceedings, which resulted in their remaining in the country illegally. In an effort to combat that problem we set up immigration courts along the border and required immigrants to remain in secure facilities for their initial court date, but at the same time we were forced to separate children from their families due to US law which says that children cannot be confined with adults for longer than (i believe) 72 hours. This resulted in children being moved to structures built by the Obama/Biden administration for that purpose (these were the infamous cages, to solve that optics problem the current administration seems to be using shipping containers in some cases).
And then there was the problem of un-accompanied minors showing up at the border. What do you do with them? It's all an administrative nightmare that our media either exploits or ignores for political purposes. We've recently moved into the pretty much ignore phase but who knows how long that will last as the numbers increase. I believe there were nearly 10,000 un-accompanied minors crossing our borders just last month.
Getting back to my original question, how does Canada deal with those problems?
In fairness, I don't have an answer to your question, Alan. Migrants are an issue around the world wherever horrendous circumstances force people to relocate often dying in the process. It is going to get worse as the climate changes impact food security and large countries plunder resources elsewhere. Senegalese fishermen could harvest enough fish locally to feed themselves and sell to sustain their lives. Factory ships from other countries moved and harvest the fish to exhaustion so those Senegalese are destitute and migrating. That story is repeated often plus add in political, drug, fraud, gang abuse and people will migrate just as the original settlers to North America fled Europe with its challenges. It is just the same story being repeated but there is not another continent or country to escape to.
Canada took in a large number of Syrians who have integrated quite well according to reports but many were well educated . African refugee immigrants are also doing well. .
I confess to not knowing as much about the migrants coming from the countries south of the US; their skillsets, their access to education so limited by political turmoil and terror.
That all said, I do feel compassion for migrants, desperate for a better future. It takes a lot for a family to leave the community in their country of origin. My parents brought us to Canada and it was tough but I am grateful that they did. So I will help migrants in whatever manner that I can. Many in NA are living with the benefits gained from their parents, grandparents, etc., migrating earlier and won't now consider supporting those in need. Sad!
That all said, I do feel compassion for migrants, desperate for a better future. It takes a lot for a family to leave the community in their country of origin. My parents brought us to Canada and it was tough but I am grateful that they did.
We immigrated from the Netherlands, Dad, Mom and 5 kids. Leave everything you know behind. Allowed to bring very few possessions and very little $ in back then. Expecting never ever to see family again. I asked Dad why during 1 of those conversations we had while he was dying. "We couldn't have been any poorer so why not try".
Yup. Leaving home? super quick easy decision to make.>:(
happystuff
3-21-21, 5:28pm
We immigrated from the Netherlands, Dad, Mom and 5 kids. Leave everything you know behind. Allowed to bring very few possessions and very little $ in back then. Expecting never ever to see family again. I asked Dad why during 1 of those conversations we had while he was dying. "We couldn't have been any poorer so why not try".
Yup. Leaving home? super quick easy decision to make.>:(
Very powerful words and experience. How brave!!! Thanks for sharing.
I actually agree, but in my opinion, that doesn't mean we stand back and not be part of it. The United States is PART of the world and should participate as such (and not necessarily from the "in charge" position). To what degree always seems to be the debate.
Many on the left seem to think we should take EVERYONE in.
I have no issue with us taking in actual war refugees, but how many of the people trying to get in are simply what the BBC refers to as "economic migrants"?
And really what are we supposed to do with unaccompanied minors? If they're coming in such numbers that the available facilities are overwhelmed, there's no way to get around that.
It appears to be a damned free for all on the southern border.
happystuff
3-21-21, 5:43pm
Many on the left seem to think we should take EVERYONE in.
I have no issue with us taking in actual war refugees, but how many of the people trying to get in are simply what the BBC refers to as "economic migrants"?
And really what are we supposed to do with unaccompanied minors? If they're coming in such numbers that the available facilities are overwhelmed, there's no way to get around that.
It appears to be a damned free for all on the southern border.
Exactly why I ended my post with "To what degree always seems to be the debate.". I don't have the definitive answer and even if what is in place now may not be working, that doesn't mean we should stop trying.
And really what are we supposed to do with unaccompanied minors? If they're coming in such numbers that the available facilities are overwhelmed, there's no way to get around that.
Unaccompanied minors, as I understand it, are defined as attempting to join family already on this side of the border. The intent is to reunite them with an adult family member. Some are parents, some grandparents, some aunt or uncle.
Unaccompanied minors, as I understand it, are defined as attempting to join family already on this side of the border.
The official definition is any minor without the presence of a legal guardian. Immigration officials are then tasked with appointing a social worker to the child, finding an appropriate legal guardian or sponsor and performing background checks to ensure the minors are being released into a safe environment. I think it's a rather time consuming process.
HHS provides an FAQ to answer any questions people may have on the process: Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Unaccompanied Children | HHS.gov (https://www.hhs.gov/programs/social-services/unaccompanied-children/faqs/index.html)
I'm the granddaughter of an immigrant, and the great-granddaughter of four hardy souls who came here in the 19th century. I will always champion the rights of refugees and immigrants to a fair hearing in this country.
Many on the left seem to think we should take EVERYONE in.
Not sure that I agree with you on this. Migrant issues are not a left or right issue to me but a humanitarian tragedy requiring a shared response and solution of all including the countries of origin. Denial of a problem doesn't make it go away. Obviously, no one country can take all the migrants of the world. With all the minds working and brainstorming, why could not a series of solutions be found to manage the problems. That requires the kind of leadership that seems to be lacking at present, leadership that pulls innovative and diverse thinking without politics and hate.
I stood on the very spot in Ireland from where the boats sailed taking families away forever during the potato famine. That was an 'economic migrant' issue. These migrants share many of the same challenges.
We immigrated prior to this law. 100 persons from the Netherlands per year---a family of 7. It took years to get here. We were not under stress of war, famine, violence....just poor.
https://www.history.com/news/immigration-act-1965-changes
I think the world's view on the USA changed with this immigration act. The USA is a great place. It is historically welcoming and full of opportunity. Why wouldn't someone who is living in horrific circumstances want to get in ASAP? These migrants live in horrific conditions compared to US conditions. Even the poor and homeless are in better conditions than many seeking asylum.
As someone said earlier, stand in their shoes..........
iris lilies
3-21-21, 10:06pm
We immigrated prior to this law. 100 persons from the Netherlands per year---a family of 7. It took years to get here. We were not under stress of war, famine, violence....just poor.
https://www.history.com/news/immigration-act-1965-changes
I think the world's view on the USA changed with this immigration act. The USA is a great place. It is historically welcoming and full of opportunity. Why wouldn't someone who is living in horrific circumstances want to get in ASAP? These migrants live in horrific conditions compared to US conditions. Even the poor and homeless are in better conditions than many seeking asylum.
As someone said earlier, stand in their shoes..........
Please elaborate on the thoughts you have ascribed those who need to “stand in their shoes. “ In other words, what do people who need to “stand in their shoes “think?
Do you think there should be any limit to number of refugees a new immigrants coming into our country?
Just letting people in doesn't address the realities of what comes next - education, housing, healthcare, employment. If I try to stand in their shoes, my motivation would be based on escaping crime, poverty and violence. And the stories told by coyotes and others who stand to profit from getting them here. Who knows how the next steps can realistically be addressed? It is a mess.
Do you think there should be any limit to number of refugees a new immigrants coming into our country?
There are limits on the number of legal immigrants allowed in the country each year. It totals just over one million a year for all classes of immigrants and the vast majority of those legal immigrants come from just about everywhere but Central and South America and Mexico. Although when you look at illegal immigration, those areas make up the vast majority.
I'm not sure why that is the case other than proximity and the misguided belief that there are no consequences to breaking the rules, but it occurs to me that our taking over a million people a year, each and every year, is a pretty impressive feat, while the efforts of some to fully open the borders for any and all would be foolhardy. That's probably why no other country in the world does so.
How does the US acceptance rate of immigrants, per capita, compare with other developed nations?
Teacher Terry
3-22-21, 1:11am
I don’t know anyone that thinks everyone should be let in. Saying everyone on the left is for open borders is ridiculous. Yes there needs to be limits. Developed countries should work together on solutions because it would benefit everyone.
It used to be you could buy your way into Canada under the Immigrant Investor Program. A lot of people fleeing Hong Kong did that. Now that has been shut down in most provinces but you can still buy your way into Quebec through the Quebec Immigrant Investor Program. This is the opposite of the situation along the southern US border where immigrants are overwhelmingly poor.
What I actually meant in my post is that many on the left I encounter want everyone who comes up through the southern border let in. So basically there’s unlimited immigration from the south and everyone else is restricted to the usual bureaucratic channels.
I’d be in favor of a seasonal worker program like there used to be, far as I can tell. Let them come in for harvest season and then they go back home. System is too overwhelmed right now, though.
iris lilies
3-22-21, 8:52am
I don’t know anyone that thinks everyone should be let in. Saying everyone on the left is for open borders is ridiculous.....
Just as being lectured to “stand in their shoes” is demeaning, as though all people on the right do not understand the plight of refugees.
I think we DO understand how great the United States is and we DO understand why those in trouble gravitate toward the United States.
Most reasonable people are in favor of legal immigrants coming here for the value they provide to our country. Legal immigrants.
Stand in their shoes isn't meant to be demeaning but respectful. It means asking what would you do differently in their shoes? What should the bureaucracy at every point do differently? It means, to me, how can I inspire understanding of the challenges in my own thinking and conversations with all involved rather than simply seeing the migrants as "the other", the detritus that someone else must deal with. That, sadly, seems to be the approach many are choosing.
iris lilies
3-22-21, 9:24am
Stand in their shoes isn't meant to be demeaning but respectful. It means asking what would you do differently in their shoes? What should the bureaucracy at every point do differently? It means, to me, how can I inspire understanding of the challenges in my own thinking and conversations with all involved rather than simply seeing the migrants as "the other", the detritus that someone else must deal with. That, sadly, seems to be the approach many are choosing.
You are wrong. “Stand in their shoes” means “understand their problems and plight.” As though I don’t, and if only I would put myself in the place of “the other” I would completely understand and even approve of their actions.
Asking for solutions for immigration is entirely different than asking for empathy and understanding for illegal immigrants.
And ascribing my opinion of “the other” as “detritus” is once again extremely negative.
Detritus. Sheesh.
From Merriam-Webster: Definition of detritus formal : the pieces that are left when something breaks, falls apart, is destroyed, etc.
I checked before I used it.
When countries, communities and people are left standing when their lives are destroyed whether in our own countries or elsewhere, it is a huge challenge for everyone. I don't know if I would 'approve of another's, the migrant's, actions, my approval is irrelevant, IMHO. That is simply a reaction.
What is needed is a response, a shared understanding and searching for a solution. That requires leadership locally, nationally, and internationally. I am not even suggesting that it is the US that is accountable for the world's challenges but a partner as should Canada and each of us individually. We are all being impacted.
iris lilies
3-22-21, 10:16am
From Merriam-Webster: Definition of detritus formal : the pieces that are left when something breaks, falls apart, is destroyed, etc.
I checked before I used it.
When countries, communities and people are left standing when their lives are destroyed whether in our own countries or elsewhere, it is a huge challenge for everyone. I don't know if I would 'approve of another's, the migrant's, actions, my approval is irrelevant, IMHO. That is simply a reaction.
What is needed is a response, a shared understanding and searching for a solution. That requires leadership locally, nationally, and internationally. I am not even suggesting that it is the US that is accountable for the world's challenges but a partner as should Canada and each of us individually. We are all being impacted.
And my Googled definition of detritus is “waste or debris of any kind” as the very first hit. This is not the sort of noun considered as kind when used to describe humans.
As a test, imagine Alan using that word to describe any group of humans. Those here would hound him as a bigot. But no matter, he wouldnt use the term.
However, all that said, I will accept that you, razz, did not intend my Googled definition in your use of it.
This will always be a platitude-heavy area of debate. We can wax eloquent about human suffering or our immigrant ancestors, but that does nothing to solve the practical problems of controlling our borders well enough to be able to make the decision as to who we allow in. It’s an area where a certain amount of ruthlessness is necessary. We need ways of intercepting people violating our borders, tracking down people who overstay their visas and ensuring the citizenship status of people seeking employment. We will need to overcome the interests seeking economic and political advantages from looking the other way.
Only then can we reasonably debate how generous we wish to be.
I remember during the Vietnamese boat people crisis my parents debated adopting a Vietnamese child, but ultimately decided against it. I would encourage all those who feel immigrants are not being welcomed enough to sponsor and/or host a family that seeks to come here legally.
And my Googled definition of detritus is “waste or debris of any kind” as the very first hit. This is not the sort of noun considered as kind when used to describe humans.
As a test, imagine Alan using that word to describe any group of humans. Those here would hound him as a bigot. But no matter, he wouldnt use the term.
However, all that said, I will accept that you, razz, did not intend my Googled definition in your use of it.
It occurred to me to clarify that I do not see Alan or anyone else as a bigot on this issue. I may disagree with another’s thinking as they may disagree with mine. I see that simply as a discussion.
Where does the USA stand, relative to other developed nations, per capita, in:
- accepting refugees
- accepting non-refugee immigrants
- accepting guest workers
Where does the USA stand, relative to other developed nations, per capita, in:
- accepting refugees
- accepting non-refugee immigrants
- accepting guest workers
I'm not sure of the answer, perhaps you are and are simply using the Socratic method? All I can say for certain is that the United States is number 1 in the world for total population born in another country with something over 48,000,000 or about 15% of our total population. I believe that the 48,000,000 number is higher than all of Western Europe, Canada and Australia combined, but can't swear to it's accuracy.
I'm not sure of the answer, perhaps you are and are simply using the Socratic method? .
I actually don't know the details, I just recall hearing various claims one way or the other, but I presume there's data out there.
And looking at the data seems like something prudent to do before starting to throw rocks or break out the torches and pitchforks, in either direction.
GeorgeParker
3-22-21, 4:51pm
I'm not sure of the answer, perhaps you are and are simply using the Socratic method? All I can say for certain is that the United States is number 1 in the world for total population born in another country with something over 48,000,000 or about 15% of our total population. I believe that the 48,000,000 number is higher than all of Europe, Canada and Australia combined, but can't swear to it's accuracy.Perhaps the real question isn't how many people were born in another country, but rather how many people living in America had parents or grandparents who were born in another country.
That seems to be the real thing anti-immigration people are worried about -- the non-wasp population increasing at a time when, statistically, Americans who are more educated, more affluent, etc are increasingly having fewer or zero children. IOW the anti-immigrant people are afraid of becoming a minority in their own country.
I don't share their extremist views, but they do have a point. There needs to be a balance between letting in people from other countries and maintaining our identity as Americans.
The thing I worry most about isn't race, religion, or national origin. It's the likelihood that massive immigration from countries plagued by ethnic or religious strife or drug wars will inevitably result in those same problems and conflicts being imported to America along with the immigrants.
frugal-one
3-22-21, 6:07pm
This will always be a platitude-heavy area of debate. We can wax eloquent about human suffering or our immigrant ancestors, but that does nothing to solve the practical problems of controlling our borders well enough to be able to make the decision as to who we allow in. It’s an area where a certain amount of ruthlessness is necessary. We need ways of intercepting people violating our borders, tracking down people who overstay their visas and ensuring the citizenship status of people seeking employment. We will need to overcome the interests seeking economic and political advantages from looking the other way.
Only then can we reasonably debate how generous we wish to be.
That is what the Border Patrol Agents are hired for.
iris lilies
3-22-21, 6:14pm
Perhaps the real question isn't how many people were born in another country, but rather how many people living in America had parents or grandparents who were born in another country.
That seems to be the real thing anti-immigration people are worried about -- the non-wasp population increasing at a time when, statistically, Americans who are more educated, more affluent, etc are increasingly having fewer or zero children. IOW the anti-immigrant people are afraid of becoming a minority in their own country.
I don't share their extremist views, but they do have a point. There needs to be a balance between letting in people from other countries and maintaining our identity as Americans.
The thing I worry most about isn't race, religion, or national origin. It's the likelihood that massive immigration from countries plagued by ethnic or religious strife or drug wars will inevitably result in those same problems and conflicts being imported to America along with the immigrants.
I think you have to be careful using phrases like “anti-immigration people” without defining what that means.
I like new immigrants coming into our country because they bring with them many things that are good for our country. I want them to be “legal “immigrants. Does that make me an “anti-immigrantion” person?
Is there something wrong with legal immigrants from European countries? If I would like to see a healthy dose of such immigrants, does that make me a “anti-immigration “person?
ApatheticNoMore
3-22-21, 6:23pm
The thing I worry most about isn't race, religion or national orgin either, it's we can't allow unlimited immigration (open borders), when we don't have the basic infrastructure to even take care of the people who are already here. I mean the way we are taking care of citizens of this country, is not okay, we can't even manage to house them. It's unacceptable. Besides I don't know if any country actually has open borders so I don't know where that strange push comes from (idealism untethered to any actual experience it seems to me). It's just what countries do, they have borders.
But though it's not my main objection (which is like I said we don't have the infrastructure to let in everyone in the world) and is just controversial, it is kind of cruel in a way for people who deliberate limit their population (like the U.S. does) by having less kids than they would like to, to not enjoy any benefits of that, maybe there should be benefits from limiting population (to replacement rate or less), it's good for the planet, it's good for the natural world and everything non-human. Btw the child tax credit, if they are going to have one, should shut off entirely after 2 kids (maybe an exception if you adopt).
I think you have to be careful using phrases like “anti-immigration people” without defining what that means.
I agree. I can't think of a soul who is anti-immigration but know lots of people who oppose illegal immigration and that doesn't make them extremist or anti-immigration. But unfortunately, that's where we're at these days, it's easier to demean and shame if you mischaracterize a person's intentions. I think it's lazy, malicious thinking and it's all too common.
bae, I did a little Googling on your question about how the US ranks in this global illegal immigration situation, and it's interesting. I found some info from 2010 which showed the US with 3.9% of its total population is here illegally, with only Greece coming in anywhere over 3%...the other countries were mostly below 1%, so, at least historically, the US has by far the biggest percentage of illegal immigrants. I wonder how much has changed in the last 10 yrs. Also, the US-Mexico corridor is the largest illegal immigration corridor anywhere in the world.
GeorgeParker
3-22-21, 7:47pm
I think you have to be careful using phrases like “anti-immigration people” without defining what that means.“Anti-immigration people” means exactly what it says. If someone is in favor of allowing immigration, they are pro-immigration. If someone is against allowing immigration, they're anti-immigration. If they are neutral or partially in favor, that is what they are.
If I said "people who are pro-Biden" or "People who are pro-environmentalist" would you accuse me of lumping everyone who has a neutral or slightly pro position as all being in the same camp, or being equally strong supporters, or having the same motivations as the most extreme members of that group?????
I was talking about people who self-define as anti-immigration. And my opinion of their reason for being anti-immigration is based on what I most often hear from them publicly and privately as their reasons for being anti-immigration.
So I flat out refuse to be drawn into a pointless debate about semantics. Nor will I engage in a debate about positions that I don't hold, and have certainly never implied, just because you want to erroneously expand what I said into some meaningless all-encompassing straw man so you can attack it.
GeorgeParker
3-22-21, 8:00pm
On the other hand, if you REALLY want to play that game:
Is there something wrong with legal immigrants from European countries? If I would like to see a healthy dose of such immigrants, does that make me a “anti-immigration “person?So you only want immigrants from European countries? No Arabs or Asians or Hispanics? Why? Are they all "the wrong kind of people"?
Touche?
I don't really think you believe that, but me asking if you believe it ought to make it easy for you to see exactly how much you're twisting and mis-representing my words.
And I defy the other people criticizing what I said to show me anywhere that I said I'm in favor of illegal immigration.
iris lilies
3-22-21, 8:03pm
“Anti-immigration people” means exactly what it says. If someone is in favor of allowing immigration, they are pro-immigration. If someone is against allowing immigration, they're anti-immigration. If they are neutral or partially in favor, that is what they are.
If I said "people who are pro-Biden" or "People who are pro-environmentalist" would you accuse me of lumping everyone who has a neutral or slightly pro position as all being in the same camp, or being equally strong supporters, or having the same motivations as the most extreme members of that group?????
I was talking about people who self-define as anti-immigration. And my opinion of their reason for being anti-immigration is based on what I most often hear from them publicly and privately as their reasons for being anti-immigration.
So I flat out refuse to be drawn into a pointless debate about semantics. Nor will I engage in a debate about positions that I don't hold, and have certainly never implied, just because you want to erroneously expand what I said into some meaningless all-encompassing straw man so you can attack it.
While there undoubtedly people who are totally against any immigration at all, those are a fringe minority. None of them are on this forum. I dont know any in real life.
GeorgeParker
3-22-21, 8:14pm
it's easier to demean and shame if you mischaracterize a person's intentions.He said while mischaracterizing both what I said and my clear intention.
Touche?
And I defy the other people criticizing what I said to show me anywhere that I said I'm in favor of illegal immigration.I don't think anyone suggested you were, I know I didn't.
He said while characterizing both what I said and my clear intention.
The only clear intention I saw was your comments regarding all the "anti-immigration" "extremists" and their desire to maintain a nation of "wasps". I see the same sentiment constantly expressed by broadcast "journalists" and contributors to mainstream op-ed pages when they're clearly talking about resistance to illegal immigration. They don't see the value in differentiating between those "extremists" that you're familiar with (although I've never met) and the people who believe that immigration law should be followed and enforced. It would help us recognize your true intentions if you separated the two, otherwise we may just see your commentary as following the herd.
bae, I did a little Googling on your question about how the US ranks in this global illegal immigration situation, and it's interesting.
Interesting data, but, to clarify, I didn't ask about the "illegal immigration situation". Just the boring old planned-for, by-the-books, immigrants and refugees.
GeorgeParker
3-22-21, 10:56pm
While there undoubtedly people who are totally against any immigration at all, those are a fringe minority. None of them are on this forum. I dont know any in real life.I do. Oh wow, I do! Remember I live in deep red Texas.
GeorgeParker
3-22-21, 11:03pm
Interesting data, but, to clarify, I didn't ask about the "illegal immigration situation". Just the boring old planned-for, by-the-books, immigrants and refugees.Haven't you noticed Bae? Any time you say "immigration" you have to put the word LEGAL in front of it or people automatically think you mean ILLEGAL immigration.
iris lilies
3-22-21, 11:03pm
I do. Oh wow, I do! Remember I live in deep red Texas.
Yes i imagine the immigration issue is a hot one since it is in the face of you all so much.
iris lilies
3-22-21, 11:06pm
Haven't you noticed Bae? Any time you say "immigration" you have to put the word LEGAL in front of it or people automatically think you mean ILLEGAL immigration.
I dont mind making that distinction. I think it’s a good idea in a world where illegal residents are termed “undocumented” as a journalistic standard.I like the clarity of LEGAL vs ILLEGAL immigration.
GeorgeParker
3-22-21, 11:21pm
I don't think anyone suggested you were, I know I didn't.
The only clear intention I saw was your comments regarding all the "anti-immigration" "extremists" and their desire to maintain a nation of "wasps". I see the same sentiment constantly expressed by broadcast "journalists" and contributors to mainstream op-ed pages when they're clearly talking about resistance to illegal immigration. They don't see the value in differentiating between those "extremists" that you're familiar with (although I've never met) and the people who believe that immigration law should be followed and enforced. It would help us recognize your true intentions if you separated the two, otherwise we may just see your commentary as following the herd.My answer is right there in your comment. Because I didn't specifically say I was talking about people who are against both legal and illegal immigration several people, including you jumped to the conclusion I was talking about people who are against illegal immigration.
And the difference between the "extremists" that I'm familiar with and the people who believe that immigration law should be followed and enforced is very simple. The people I'm talking about are ANTI-IMMIGRATION. They think it would be a wonderful idea to put a blanket ban on people from certain countries coming here, and people of certain ethnicities, and people of certain religions. Are you seriously telling me you didn't see any rules like that put in place during the Trump presidency and you didn't see any people, including senators, supporting similar restrictions?
GeorgeParker
3-22-21, 11:38pm
I dont mind making that distinction. I think it’s a good idea in a world where illegal residents are termed “undocumented” as a journalistic standard.I like the clarity of LEGAL vs ILLEGAL immigration.Ok, so if I say something about car drivers or motorcyclists I should always put the word "licensed" in front of the term because otherwise people will think I'm talking about the illegal car drivers and illegal motorcyclists who are riding around without a valid driver's license? Doesn't that seem pretty damn silly?
If I meant illegal immigration, I would have said so.
And that is EOCP (end of conversation permanently) for me because, as I said in post #48: "I flat out refuse to be drawn into a pointless debate about semantics. Nor will I engage in a debate about positions that I don't hold and have certainly never implied."
mschrisgo2
3-23-21, 1:48am
There are several parts of the current immigration situation that really bother me:
- the overwhelming amount of unaccompanied minors. How can we reasonably deal with them? They need homes, adult guidance, schooling, health care, and the list goes on. But within our current laws, there is no provision for providing for their needs.
- the “Dreamers” - who have worked hard, jumped through lots of hoops already, still with no clear path to citizenship. As a country, we have already invested a lot in these young people, it’s high time we made them citizens, IMHO. And then shut that door.
- people who overstay their visas, “forgot” to go home after their visit. We have laws against that, let’s enforce the laws.
[the US could take a lesson from Canada, if you go visit, for whatever reason, they are clear when you will be expected to leave. And they follow up.]
- Guest Workers- there is no doubt in my mind that our economy Needs a fair amount of guest workers, simply because they are willing to do the work that citizens will not. Right off the top, I can think of 2 industries that depend on guest workers, hospitality, and the wine industry. So let’s make this a formal program, yes, let them bring their wife and kids, work a specified amount of time, then go home. There are few things more demoralizing and destructive to the very fiber of society than hidden wives and children, many many of whom get no health care, and are kept out of school for fear of being permanently separated from their families.
so, just a few of the subsets of immigration, and a few thoughts.
Is there something wrong with legal immigrants from European countries? If I would like to see a healthy dose of such immigrants, does that make me a “anti-immigration “person?
Like Norway? Unfortunately people in Norway have little desire to immigrate here. Many more people from trump’s shithole countries wish to come.
iris lilies
3-23-21, 9:41am
Like Norway? Unfortunately people in Norway have little desire to immigrate here. Many more people from trump’s shithole countries wish to come.
Eastern Europe. That is my current focus of interest for travel so I would like to see more of them here!
Our Bosnian community, the second largest in the world and the largest outside of Bosnia, did a great job in assimilating. They have been here long enough that they, like the Vietnamese before them, are already moving up and out of the urban core. They’re getting out of Dodge and getting their kids away from Urban crime and all of that. Pretty impressive.
Like Norway? Unfortunately people in Norway have little desire to immigrate here. Many more people from trump’s shithole countries wish to come.
Looking at the 2019 data from Statista, it looks like about 1,600 Americans emigrated to Norway, while about 1,000 Norwegians emigrated to the US. So you could argue that a greater percentage of the population of Norway chose to come here than vice versa.
frugal-one
3-23-21, 12:17pm
There are several parts of the current immigration situation that really bother me:
- the overwhelming amount of unaccompanied minors. How can we reasonably deal with them? They need homes, adult guidance, schooling, health care, and the list goes on. But within our current laws, there is no provision for providing for their needs.
- the “Dreamers” - who have worked hard, jumped through lots of hoops already, still with no clear path to citizenship. As a country, we have already invested a lot in these young people, it’s high time we made them citizens, IMHO. And then shut that door.
- people who overstay their visas, “forgot” to go home after their visit. We have laws against that, let’s enforce the laws.
[the US could take a lesson from Canada, if you go visit, for whatever reason, they are clear when you will be expected to leave. And they follow up.]
- Guest Workers- there is no doubt in my mind that our economy Needs a fair amount of guest workers, simply because they are willing to do the work that citizens will not. Right off the top, I can think of 2 industries that depend on guest workers, hospitality, and the wine industry. So let’s make this a formal program, yes, let them bring their wife and kids, work a specified amount of time, then go home. There are few things more demoralizing and destructive to the very fiber of society than hidden wives and children, many many of whom get no health care, and are kept out of school for fear of being permanently separated from their families.
so, just a few of the subsets of immigration, and a few thoughts.
Heard/read recently that Obama had a system in place to remedy or at least substantially reduce this issue but trump discarded the system in favor of a wall. Supposedly, this issue has been problematic for quite some time and that is why a system was developed (and then promptly discarded by trump... probably only because Obama came up with it???).
I agree with your other thoughts as well.
ApatheticNoMore
3-23-21, 1:03pm
Considering that the large quantity of illegal immigrants, minimal attempts to make them legal (short of rare one time amnesties like under Reagan) or expel them or prevent entry entirely (although most Presidents have made some attempt at having a border), is a situation that has been going on for decades, it must suit the powers that be just fine. It's true open borders would be a change from that, hard to see it as a positive one.
Traditionally, immigrants come in waves depending on conditions in their country of origin. There's very little reason, save professional ones, for anyone in Europe to want to emigrate.
There's very little reason, save professional ones, for anyone in Europe to want to emigrate.
I'm guessing you don't watch 90 Day Fiance.
I'm guessing you don't watch 90 Day Fiance.
You guessed right!
It seems like immigration and gun control issues are never seriously addressed because they are political party hot buttons that can be used for their benefit either way.
Looking at the 2019 data from Statista, it looks like about 1,600 Americans emigrated to Norway, while about 1,000 Norwegians emigrated to the US. So you could argue that a greater percentage of the population of Norway chose to come here than vice versa.
I've been looking into moving to Norway for several years now, as I've mentioned previously.
The process of doing so, if you wish to do so legally, for an American not seeking refugee status, is a bit cumbersome, especially if you wish to be able to work in Norway.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.