Mass immigration: should we embrace it or not?

[Luziyca]

In order to prevent a derailment of the Istanbul terror attack thread, I have decided to create a thread about whether we should permit migration from less developed regions to more developed regions.

While many people view immigration to more developed countries as a good thing for the economy and for their nations (especially as they face a greying population), others fear that immigration brings crime, terrorism, and all that bad stuff. And nothing can sum it up better than the migrant/refugee crisis that is ongoing in Europe as a result of turmoil in the Middle East.

So, what say ye, NSG? Do you feel that mass immigration is beneficial or not?

In my opinion, in regards to refugees, I think that refugees should just go to the first safe country that will not persecute them, follow the proper procedures to apply for refugee status, and if they want to start a new life elsewhere, they can apply to be resettled via the proper means.

For asylum seekers, pretty much the same thing as refugees. If they engage in asylum shopping, then the decision of the first state that they have applied for asylum for should be binding and any other requests be deemed invalid.

For immigration, I personally do not mind it, because in Canada, our population is so small in comparison to our neighbor that we easily absorb American culture. The more people that come here, the more distinctive Canada can become from the States. If we must restrict them, I suggest to just impose a wet-foot/dry-foot policy: those that arrive on shore can apply for asylum/immigration/whatnot, while those caught en route will be sent back, unless the country that they're from is undergoing a war/genocide/what-not.

As for the few bad apples that commit crimes like rape or murder, we can deport them back if convicted in a court of law of such crimes, even if they are already a citizen: in the cases where they become citizens, their citizenship should be revoked.

[Vassenor]

Almost all of the arguments against migration from the middle east could just as easily be applied to people from any other part of the globe.

So what makes them so different that we must seal our borders against them?

[Dooom35796821595]

No. mass migration implies an open door policy and puts a strain on government budgets of countries with welfare states. It's especially problematic when a country like Germany does it, since they're a member of a free travel zone with no internal border controls, creating a problem for their land border neighbours part of the Schengen area.

[Zakuvia]

The immigration isn't the issue. It's the 'mass' that causes problems. Take a look at how insular and opposed to integration the refugee camps in Europe are. When immigration happens in a per-family basis, then there's a much higher likelihood that they will be setteled in neighborhoods where they WON'T be surrounded by fellow migrants. But when it's en masse, it's not logistically possible for most nations to do that. This leads to populations becoming more insular rather than becoming more accepting, and are now bitter because they're considered an outgroup by the society they fled to.

Also take into account the fact that the odds of dangerous individuals entering the country rises exponentially when the vetting process has to be relaxed. Yes, some of the more high-profile events we've seen have been from migrants who used the more personalized immigration experience, but that's all the more reason not to relax the standards even further, and indeed to tighten them up across the board.

[Luziyca]

Almost all of the arguments against migration from the middle east could just as easily be applied to people from any other part of the globe.

So what makes them so different that we must seal our borders against them?

In their minds, they're not "us."

I only used the Middle East as an example because there seems to be quite a lot of uproar around immigration from the region right now (except Israel, for some reason).

However, I don't support completely sealing up the borders. To the contrary, I feel that anyone who arrives on Canada's shores can enter, but at the same time, we need some ground rules to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers are not merely shopping for the "best offer to do whatever," but rather to provide them with safety from persecution.

[Luziyca]

The immigration isn't the issue. It's the 'mass' that causes problems. Take a look at how insular and opposed to integration the refugee camps in Europe are. When immigration happens in a per-family basis, then there's a much higher likelihood that they will be setteled in neighborhoods where they WON'T be surrounded by fellow migrants. But when it's en masse, it's not logistically possible for most nations to do that. This leads to populations becoming more insular rather than becoming more accepting, and are now bitter because they're considered an outgroup by the society they fled to.

That may pose a problem, yes.

However, when society resists their integration into the body politic, it just creates a vicious cycle, until something horrible happens and shit hits the fan.

[Rio Cana]

Some nations rather not have it. Just watch the first 3:46 of this video. The Dominican soldiers you see are guarding there half of an international bridge on the border of the Dominican Republic and Haiti .That gate is the border. The Dominican soldiers have to pull back off there half of the bridge when some people from Haiti start throwing rocks to get across the border which is closed. Some Dominican civilians pick up the rocks and throw them back while some Dominican civilian nationalists (you can hear them) are trying to get the soldiers to act more agressively. Then the military gets into action -

See video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIsRSkIKHDU

[Lady Scylla]

Migration in moderation is better.

[Formidable Opponent]

Islam is a special case as terrorists and the Qur'an actively and openly calls for global domination of Islam under Sharia Law, so my answer would be no, not unless the person qualifies for asylum and has documents

[Luziyca]

Migration in moderation is better.

I am sure it is better than either extreme, yeah.

[The Portland Territory]

No, fuck that. It puts too much of a burden on the natives. Not to mention the social and security issues of it

[Gravlen]

In order to prevent a derailment of the Istanbul terror attack thread, I have decided to create a thread about whether we should permit migration from less developed regions to more developed regions.

The answer is yes.

While many people view immigration to more developed countries as a good thing for the economy and for their nations (especially as they face a greying population), others fear that immigration brings crime, terrorism, and all that bad stuff. And nothing can sum it up better than the migrant/refugee crisis that is ongoing in Europe as a result of turmoil in the Middle East.

Unsurprisingly, there's benefits and drawbacks to immigration.

So, what say ye, NSG? Do you feel that mass immigration is beneficial or not?

What exactly do you mean by "mass immigration"?

In my opinion, in regards to refugees, I think that refugees should just go to the first safe country that will not persecute them, follow the proper procedures to apply for refugee status, and if they want to start a new life elsewhere, they can apply to be resettled via the proper means.

For asylum seekers, pretty much the same thing as refugees. If they engage in asylum shopping, then the decision of the first state that they have applied for asylum for should be binding and any other requests be deemed invalid.

Why are you differentiating between asylum seekers and refugees? Are you unaware that a refugee is an asylum seeker who've had his or her status as a refugee recognised by the host country?

For immigration, I personally do not mind it, because in Canada, our population is so small in comparison to our neighbor that we easily absorb American culture. The more people that come here, the more distinctive Canada can become from the States. If we must restrict them, I suggest to just impose a wet-foot/dry-foot policy: those that arrive on shore can apply for asylum/immigration/whatnot, while those caught en route will be sent back, unless the country that they're from is undergoing a war/genocide/what-not.

Huh? Does this mean you'd do away with the possibility to apply for residency permits from outside the country?

As for the few bad apples that commit crimes like rape or murder, we can deport them back if convicted in a court of law of such crimes, even if they are already a citizen: in the cases where they become citizens, their citizenship should be revoked.

Why should their citizenship be revoked?
How far back would it apply? If someone got citizenship at a very young age, should they be stripped of their citizenship 40 or 50 years later?
What if a person becomes stateless as a result?

[Southerly Gentleman]

Case-by-case basis, my friends. If the prospective immigrant in question can assimilate himself into Western culture and ideals while contributing positively (i.e. not shooting up concerts) to society, I say let em come on in.

problem is, it's really hard to tell which immigrants will be good children and which wont.

[Luziyca]

In my opinion, in regards to refugees, I think that refugees should just go to the first safe country that will not persecute them, follow the proper procedures to apply for refugee status, and if they want to start a new life elsewhere, they can apply to be resettled via the proper means.

For asylum seekers, pretty much the same thing as refugees. If they engage in asylum shopping, then the decision of the first state that they have applied for asylum for should be binding and any other requests be deemed invalid.

Why are you differentiating between asylum seekers and refugees? Are you unaware that a refugee is an asylum seeker who've had his or her status as a refugee recognised by the host country?

...I thought they meant two distinct things.

For immigration, I personally do not mind it, because in Canada, our population is so small in comparison to our neighbor that we easily absorb American culture. The more people that come here, the more distinctive Canada can become from the States. If we must restrict them, I suggest to just impose a wet-foot/dry-foot policy: those that arrive on shore can apply for asylum/immigration/whatnot, while those caught en route will be sent back, unless the country that they're from is undergoing a war/genocide/what-not.

Huh? Does this mean you'd do away with the possibility to apply for residency permits from outside the country?

They still can. Nowhere did I advocate removing them altogether.

As for the few bad apples that commit crimes like rape or murder, we can deport them back if convicted in a court of law of such crimes, even if they are already a citizen: in the cases where they become citizens, their citizenship should be revoked.

Why should their citizenship be revoked?
How far back would it apply? If someone got citizenship at a very young age, should they be stripped of their citizenship 40 or 50 years later?
What if a person becomes stateless as a result?

If the person acquired citizenship below the age of majority, then I don't think they should be stripped. But if they got it at or after they reach the age of majority, then they can lose their citizenship.

Also, if they become stateless because they get stripped of citizenship for committing a criminal offense, I am not sure what to do with them, because if we deport them, it could cause controversy, and the nation where s/he may be born may not want them to be imprisoned. But at the same time, statelessness can give another incentive to not commit the crime.

Case-by-case basis, my friends. If the prospective immigrant in question can assimilate himself into Western culture and ideals while contributing positively (i.e. not shooting up concerts) to society, I say let em come on in.

problem is, it's really hard to tell which immigrants will be good children and which wont.

Hence innocent until proven guilty. Often, I imagine that most immigrants will probably live quiet lives: only some of them will get up into no good.

[Dahon]

Well, if they're like "us" -- long, short, big, small, bearded, beardless, black, white, brown, yellow, red, green, violet, rainbow, with and without sexondary sexual characteristics, gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, metrosexual, transgendered, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, animist, pantheist, atheist, et cetera -- then they should be accepted. In one or en masse.

If they're all a bunch of terrorists, then shoot them and shoot them dead.

[Pherdistan]

I think we should. I'll admit that, as a first and second-generation (father and mother's side of the family, respectively) immigrant, I could never find it in my heart to refuse entry to anyone who wanted to. Open the borders, I say!

[Southerly Gentleman]

Well, if they're like "us" -- long, short, big, small, bearded, beardless, black, white, brown, yellow, red, green, violet, rainbow, with and without sexondary sexual characteristics, gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, metrosexual, transgendered, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, animist, pantheist, atheist, et cetera -- then they should be accepted. In one or en masse.

If they're all a bunch of terrorists, then shoot them and shoot them dead.

Just curious, where do you draw the line between what's acceptable for tolerance and what's not?

[The East Marches]

Nope, its not our problem to save the poor and starving of the world. What we can do is take those who will prove useful. Sort them out by profession, education etc. Take the best and leave the rest.

[Dahon]

Just curious, where do you draw the line between what's acceptable for tolerance and what's not?

Case-by-case basis.

[Minzerland II]

Nope, its not our problem to save the poor and starving of the world. What we can do is take those who will prove useful. Sort them out by profession, education etc. Take the best and leave the rest.

^^^

[Southerly Gentleman]

Just curious, where do you draw the line between what's acceptable for tolerance and what's not?

Case-by-case basis.

Soo it's completely subjective?

[Internationalist Bastard]

I understand people's issues with it, what I don't get is people looking at and not thinking, "wow, those poor people, why are they all migrating? How can I help?

[The Princes of the Universe]

Not being from the Old World, I don't feel qualified to speak on it, but as far as the New World goes, within reason, open doors are best doors. The New World wouldn't exist without immigrants.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Nope, its not our problem to save the poor and starving of the world. What we can do is take those who will prove useful. Sort them out by profession, education etc. Take the best and leave the rest.

This just in, working poor don't deserve a chance

[Pherdistan]

Soo it's completely subjective?

I wouldn't say so. On a case-by-case basis means you examine who would be a legitimate threat and who wouldn't. If Abu al-Terrorist comes to you with a rap sheet five miles long, he should obviously be denied. But if Malik ibn-Straight al-Laced has a doctorate in engineering, no arrest record, and wears American-flag sweater vests, he should come in.

While it is "subjective", it's only subjective in that you would have to be more flexible mentally than a contortionist physically to let Abu get accepted. Presumably, the government would want screeners who make reliable determinations of who they want. If you define a category, it's reasonable.

Humans are good at gauging subjectivity; it's only when you're actively trying to abuse the system that subjectivity falls flat. Presumably, customs agents trying to protect their country wouldn't want to be so subjective as to let anyone pass through.