by Free South Califas » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:51 pm
by Earth and the Colonies » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:06 pm
by Saiwania » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:15 pm
by The Republic of Lanos » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:19 pm
Earth and the Colonies wrote:Good luck having a welfare state, or even a basic safety net, in a country with completely unrestricted immigration. Bankruptcy would be a given.
by Socialist EU » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:19 pm
Saiwania wrote:What does moral duty (which is subjective) have to do with the actual business of running a country again? The US is no more obligated to open its borders than Mexico is, or for that matter any other country. The various national governments of the world have the right to determine their own immigration policies and if some people can't move to wherever they want to easily, that is just too bad. A nation's primary responsibility is for its own citizens.
by Keron » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:20 pm
Earth and the Colonies wrote:Good luck having a welfare state, or even a basic safety net, in a country with completely unrestricted immigration. Bankruptcy would be a given.
by The Matthew Islands » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:21 pm
Souseiseki wrote:as a posting career in the UK Poltics Thread becomes longer, the probability of literally becoming souseiseki approaches 1
by Socialist EU » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:21 pm
by Gauthier » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:22 pm
by The Nationalist Republic of America » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:26 pm
by Agymnum » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:27 pm
The Nationalist Republic of America wrote:Dear god no!
Yes, immigrants are beneficial to the country. However, we can't use have the border completely open and let all sorts of riff raff run in here.
Instead, we should just make immigration easier (while tightening border security) and bring back assimilation programs.
by Sondstead » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:28 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Poor analogy. A better one would be a high school american football team approaching a couple of kids quietly reading/writing during lunch hour, telling them to play with them and then stamping on their books/notepads if they refuse.
All with the teacher watching on from the sidelines nodding in approval.
by Saiwania » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:29 pm
Socialist EU wrote:That will not advance human freedom.
by Myrensis » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:32 pm
First, the laws are coercive. That is, immigration restrictions are implemented through threats of physical force. Borders are patrolled by armed guards, and armed officers forcibly remove those who are discovered residing in the country illegally.
Second, the laws are highly restrictive. That is, they significantly interfere with individuals' ability to control their own destinies.
For most of those affected, the choice that is thereby closed off is an extremely important one, one with profound implications for the rest of those individuals' lives. Few decisions are so important as the choice of what society to live in.
In addition, immigration laws prevent those already living within the United States from interacting with would-be immigrants in ways that they would otherwise choose-- for instance, from employing the would-be immigrants, renting them apartments, or entering into other business and social relations
U.S. immigration policy forces millions to live in the Third World who could have better lives in America if only the American government were to step out of the way.
by Hippostania » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:33 pm
Agymnum wrote:Assimilation?
Oh, you mean destroying immigrant culture? Right, right.
We, we tried that with Native Americans? You know, that whole "We'll make you into white men so you'll be 'civilized'." Guess how that turned out.
by The Joseon Dynasty » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:34 pm
by The Nationalist Republic of America » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:34 pm
Agymnum wrote:The Nationalist Republic of America wrote:Dear god no!
Yes, immigrants are beneficial to the country. However, we can't use have the border completely open and let all sorts of riff raff run in here.
Instead, we should just make immigration easier (while tightening border security) and bring back assimilation programs.
Assimilation?
Oh, you mean destroying immigrant culture? Right, right.
We, we tried that with Native Americans? You know, that whole "We'll make you into white men so you'll be 'civilized'." Guess how that turned out.
by Gauthier » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:34 pm
Hippostania wrote:Agymnum wrote:Assimilation?
Oh, you mean destroying immigrant culture? Right, right.
We, we tried that with Native Americans? You know, that whole "We'll make you into white men so you'll be 'civilized'." Guess how that turned out.
It turned out quite fine, in fact. When we first arrived in America, five civilized tribes adopted quite a few Western customs when we first and nowadays almost all Indians have adopted our superior Western culture.
by Agymnum » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:34 pm
Hippostania wrote:Agymnum wrote:Assimilation?
Oh, you mean destroying immigrant culture? Right, right.
We, we tried that with Native Americans? You know, that whole "We'll make you into white men so you'll be 'civilized'." Guess how that turned out.
It turned out quite fine, in fact. When we first arrived in America, five civilized tribes adopted quite a few Western customs when we first and nowadays almost all Indians have adopted our superior Western culture.
by The Republic of Lanos » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:35 pm
Hippostania wrote:Agymnum wrote:Assimilation?
Oh, you mean destroying immigrant culture? Right, right.
We, we tried that with Native Americans? You know, that whole "We'll make you into white men so you'll be 'civilized'." Guess how that turned out.
It turned out quite fine, in fact. When we first arrived in America, five civilized tribes adopted quite a few Western customs when we first and nowadays almost all Indians have adopted our superior Western culture.
by Gauthier » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:35 pm
Agymnum wrote:Hippostania wrote:It turned out quite fine, in fact. When we first arrived in America, five civilized tribes adopted quite a few Western customs when we first and nowadays almost all Indians have adopted our superior Western culture.
Mostly because we forced them to.
You're not even American. Who are you to say what's good for this country?
by Socialist EU » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:37 pm
Saiwania wrote:Socialist EU wrote:That will not advance human freedom.
That does not make it any less of a reality, if you do not like a particular nation's immigration policies; take it up with that national government. Countries cannot be forced to open their borders when they may have any number of reasons for wanting to regulate their borders. The citizenry of a particular country might even vote to restrict immigration and in that case, I believe it is appropriate for a democratic government to respect their citizens' wishes.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dazchan, Eahland, Free Radio States, Haganham, Himmelland, Ineva, Kostane, Neanderthaland, New Temecula, Oceanic Socialist Republics, Sarolandia, Soviet Haaregrad, Statesburg, The Vooperian Union, Verkhoyanska
Advertisement