ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

What you wrote is well said, but it's too apples-to-oranges to compare some of this to the law. I'm not speaking on Molyneux, as I haven't watched the video, just on what you wrote. With the law, you are talking about a whole different animal than the privilege of being one of the select group of immigrants allowed to legally enter the country every year.

Iirc you have children, yes? If you got to pick (which we do as a country vis a vis immigration) who would you choose to be your neighbors if they all had to be immigrants? Would your first choice really be a random young adult male from Somalia? It wouldn't be racist to pick someone from another country, as I'm sure you wouldn't bat an eye at a black Canadian woman moving next door. The fact is, some countries are shit holes right now, and other countries are much much more likely to produce naturalized citizens that want to be good, upstanding Americans, and come with a set of valuable learned skills.

That should be the main priority for our immigration anyway. We can afford to be choosy, so lets take the brain drain from other countries and use it to benefit us. If the numbers don't work out to be fair to some countries, sorry about your feelings.

New Zealand has a similar policy, yes? Don't GGG always mention that they basically can't hire foreigners unless they prove they couldn't find someone equally skilled in NZ? Is this racism? I would ask where is the line, but you've already drawn some fair ones. But again, we're talking about the privilege to immigrate, not the right to innocence until proven guilty.

"

innervation wrote:

If you got to pick (which we do as a country vis a vis immigration) who would you choose to be your neighbors if they all had to be immigrants? Would your first choice really be a random young adult male from Somalia?

We had a month long outrage about this question in Germany because one politician said that in general, native Germans don't want to be neighbors with people from African descent (that was the gist of his statement). What followed was the expected virtue signalling from people who claimed they'd love to have such neighbors and the politician got ostracized for being a racist shithead.

While his statement sounds racist as fuck on the surface, he's not wrong. Statistics prove that native Germans are fleeing from specifically populated areas of the country if they can afford it. Statistics also prove that even immigrants do it if they are able to, but mostly they aren't. The ironic part is that those Germans who can afford to move away and send their kids to a school with barely any immigrant pupils are usually voting for more immigration. They don't have to deal with the consequences after all.

"

innervation wrote:

What you wrote is well said, but it's too apples-to-oranges to compare some of this to the law. I'm not speaking on Molyneux, as I haven't watched the video, just on what you wrote. With the law, you are talking about a whole different animal than the privilege of being one of the select group of immigrants allowed to legally enter the country every year.

Iirc you have children, yes? If you got to pick (which we do as a country vis a vis immigration) who would you choose to be your neighbors if they all had to be immigrants? Would your first choice really be a random young adult male from Somalia? It wouldn't be racist to pick someone from another country, as I'm sure you wouldn't bat an eye at a black Canadian woman moving next door. The fact is, some countries are shit holes right now, and other countries are much much more likely to produce naturalized citizens that want to be good, upstanding Americans, and come with a set of valuable learned skills.

That should be the main priority for our immigration anyway. We can afford to be choosy, so lets take the brain drain from other countries and use it to benefit us. If the numbers don't work out to be fair to some countries, sorry about your feelings.

New Zealand has a similar policy, yes? Don't GGG always mention that they basically can't hire foreigners unless they prove they couldn't find someone equally skilled in NZ? Is this racism? I would ask where is the line, but you've already drawn some fair ones. But again, we're talking about the privilege to immigrate, not the right to innocence until proven guilty.

You have to option to move out if you want and pick where you live. I don't see how you can prevent someone from living next door even if you do not like them.

Looking at the immigration pie chart, a lot of immigrants came from Mexico, China, India, Philippines or Vietnam. I don't think you are getting it right. They choose to come here, you get to agree or not. You don't pick them, they pick you. They are economic migrants of higher status. If you don't pick them up, they would pick another country.

That wasn't to force companies to hire local Only but to give local a fair opportunity. Some foreign companies have certain unfair hiring practices.

"

innervation wrote:

If you got to pick (which we do as a country vis a vis immigration) who would you choose to be your neighbors if they all had to be immigrants? Would your first choice really be a random young adult male from Somalia? It wouldn't be racist to pick someone from another country, as I'm sure you wouldn't bat an eye at a black Canadian woman moving next door. The fact is, some countries are shit holes right now, and other countries are much much more likely to produce naturalized citizens that want to be good, upstanding Americans, and come with a set of valuable learned skills.

Although you're correct that such behavior wouldn't be racist, it would discriminate based on national origin.

In the previous Trump thread I listed my immigration priorities. To summarize, they were:
* having home country's government provide applicant's relevant criminal history with US, with confidence said history is accurate, or no immigration from that country unless applicant deemed to be valuable to enemies of the US and under military protection
* refusing criminal applicants
* refusing applicant families with average IQ below median US IQ, excluding untestable infants
* English as only language option for IQ test
* Fees levied against applicant at paperwork processing cost (not for profit)
* No further requirements, as they only bog down worthy immigrants and encourage bypass of legal immigration

In some cases I agree with banning immigration from certain countries, but only for just cause: that is, if we can't determine if immigrants from said country are security risks or not due to rocky relations with that country's government or insufficient policing in that nation. If Somalia (and Canada both) complied with the standard, under the system I propose, I would be equally fine with a new neighbor who immigrated from either nation. I readily admit that's a much bigger "if" for Somalia than Canada, but if the standard is met it is met.

I don't think good people from nations under tyranny should be completely SOL, so I support a separate immigration opportunity for those who defect from our enemies. Obviously this is a more complicated process that would require defense agency approval and monitoring, and thus by necessity be much more selective (higher standards for potential immigrants). But if, say, North Korea has an Eistein-level genius and he is willing to betray his home country, yes, we want him (or her) to have a future in the US. We'd just need to be very careful about it.

So in short, I don't believe in discrimination against immigrants based on national origin, although I understand a certain level of realism is required for safety.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

innervation wrote:

If you got to pick (which we do as a country vis a vis immigration) who would you choose to be your neighbors if they all had to be immigrants? Would your first choice really be a random young adult male from Somalia? It wouldn't be racist to pick someone from another country, as I'm sure you wouldn't bat an eye at a black Canadian woman moving next door. The fact is, some countries are shit holes right now, and other countries are much much more likely to produce naturalized citizens that want to be good, upstanding Americans, and come with a set of valuable learned skills.

Although you're correct that such behavior wouldn't be racist, it would discriminate based on national origin.

In the previous Trump thread I listed my immigration priorities. To summarize, they were:
* having home country's government provide applicant's relevant criminal history with US, with confidence said history is accurate, or no immigration from that country unless applicant deemed to be valuable to enemies of the US
* refusing criminal applicants
* refusing applicants below median US IQ
* English as only language option for IQ test
* Fees levied against applicant at cost (not for profit)
* No further requirements, as they only bog down worthy immigrants and encourage bypass of legal immigration

In some cases I agree with banning immigration from certain countries, but only for just cause: that is, if we can't determine if immigrants from said country are security risks or not due to rocky relations with that country's government or insufficient policing in that nation. If Somalia (and Canada both) complied with the standard, under the system I propose, I would be equally fine with a new neighbor who immigrated from either nation. I readily admit that's a much bigger "if" for Somalia than Canada, but if the standard is met it is met.

I don't think good people from nations under tyranny should be completely SOL, so I support a separate immigration opportunity for those who defect from our enemies. Obviously this is a more complicated process that would require defense agency approval and monitoring, and thus by necessity be much more selective (higher standards for potential immigrants). But if, say, North Korea has an Eistein-level genius and he is willing to betray his home country, yes, we want him (or her) to have a future in the US. We'd just need to be very careful about it.

So in short, I don't believe in discrimination against immigrants based on national origin, although I understand a certain level of realism is required for safety.

I like your priorities

I may ditch IQ test for say someone being able to prove that they have useful skills or abilities but that makes process more complicated

English fluency is totally a must

I could overlook certain nonviolent cimes, like really minor ones, or if the place the are coming from has goofy laws like the whole female head scarf thing

lastly and I mean this half in jest.... is she hot???

"

k1rage wrote:

I could overlook certain nonviolent cimes, like really minor ones, or if the place the are coming from has goofy laws like the whole female head scarf thing

The question I'd ask is "is this a felony in the US?" If it's not, then it should be ignored. If a nation of origin considers certain US felonies to be noncrimes, we'd need to convince that government to make them at least "speeding tickets" they enforce properly so we have a valid criminal record, or we cut off immigration from that country.

Also, I don't strictly require English fluency. If an immigrant knows it just barely enough to BS their way through an English-language IQ test with a passing score, plus other assorted paperwork in English, that's good enough for me.

What stage of TDS is it when you acquit an illegal alien of manslaughter just to stick it to Trump? The absolute state of California.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/30/kate-steinle-shooting-jury-reaches-verdict/

"

Xavderion wrote:

illegal alien

The ABC News headline is "Undocumented immigrant found not guilty in death of woman shot on San Francisco pier."

New York Times: "Undocumented Immigrant Acquitted in Killing of Kate Steinle"

CNN: "Undocumented immigrant acquitted in Kate Steinle death"

The problem is: Jose Zarate had a known record. He had been convicted of seven felonies. He had been deported five times. He was a well-documented criminal. Because documents. Several documents.

Go find a new euphemism, lefties. "Undocumented" is fake news. And since we sincerely hope Zarate doesn't permanently settle in this country, "immigrant" isn't true either.

The word-speak is so grossly Orwellian. An immigrant is, by definition, legal. Being an

'undocumented immigrant' isn't possible, because without legal documentation, you're not.

'illegal immigrant' same here. The man (Zarate) is just

'illegal' - been deported 5 times already, in fact.

But our American Pravda won't use the right term. Of course.

"

innervation wrote:

The word-speak is so grossly Orwellian. An immigrant is, by definition, legal. Being an

'undocumented immigrant' isn't possible, because without legal documentation, you're not.

'illegal immigrant' same here. The man (Zarate) is just

'illegal' - been deported 5 times already, in fact.

But our American Pravda won't use the right term. Of course.

Like most things, the answer is it depends on the legality of it. Someone who overstays a visa for instance is not violating criminal law, they committed a civil violation which would be handled in immigration court. For example, speeding is a civil offense handled in traffic court which is why we don't refer to anyone who got a speeding ticket as a criminal.

What is illegal is entering the country without permission of an immigration officer.

So some are illegal, which refers to criminal law, but others are not. If you want to argue semantics, it gets nit picky.

In this particular referenced instance, the person was here illegally.