by Luziyca » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:20 pm
by Vassenor » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:22 pm
by Dooom35796821595 » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:28 pm
by Zakuvia » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:32 pm
by Luziyca » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:33 pm
Vassenor wrote: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?
by Luziyca » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:36 pm
Zakuvia wrote: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.
by Rio Cana » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:38 pm
by Formidable Opponent » Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:21 pm
by Luziyca » Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:21 pm
Lady Scylla wrote:Migration in moderation is better.
by The Portland Territory » Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:23 pm
by Gravlen » Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:36 pm
Luziyca wrote: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.
Luziyca wrote: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.
Luziyca wrote:So, what say ye, NSG? Do you feel that mass immigration is beneficial or not?
Luziyca wrote: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.
Luziyca wrote: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.
Luziyca wrote: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.
by Southerly Gentleman » Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:40 pm
by Luziyca » Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:42 pm
Gravlen wrote:Luziyca wrote: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?
Gravlen wrote:Luziyca wrote: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?
Gravlen wrote:Luziyca wrote: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 wrote: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.
by Dahon » Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:53 pm
by Pherdistan » Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:55 pm
by Southerly Gentleman » Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:57 pm
DAHON wrote: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.
by The East Marches » Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:57 pm
by Dahon » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:00 pm
Southerly Gentleman wrote:Just curious, where do you draw the line between what's acceptable for tolerance and what's not?
by Minzerland II » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:20 pm
The East Marches wrote: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.
St Anselm of Canterbury wrote:[…]who ever heard of anything having two mothers or two fathers? (Monologion, pg. 63)
by Southerly Gentleman » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:20 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:31 pm
by The Princes of the Universe » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:31 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:32 pm
The East Marches wrote: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.
by Pherdistan » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:32 pm
Southerly Gentleman wrote:Soo it's completely subjective?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Al-Haqiqah, Azurius, Corporate Collective Salvation, Fort Viorlia, Ifreann, Iujhj, Luxeinia, Tungstan, Vassenor
Advertisement