[media][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgw8WLG5GQ[/URL][/media]
[media][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAkdIihJTXM[/URL][/media]
Note: [I]view comments of both videos at your own risk![/I]
Many immigrants seek a better way of life from the countries they emigrate from. Many are from countries which offer no support or work, and some are even from countries which have a dire impact on the very means of their survival (e.g. through war, crime, etc).
[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320940/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Too-immigrants-today-expect-Britain-adopt-THEIR-culture.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320702/Immigrants-told-housing-healthcare-paid-taxes-Britains-welfare-system.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301743/How-invasion-immigrants-corner-England-mockery-PMs-promise-close-door.html[/URL]
At the start of the first video, the young male ponders on whether there is any difference between his need for survival and another's need for survival. Rightly so too, especially in a world where there's an abundance of food, water and land (especially if it's used more efficiently, e.g. supermarkets not throwing out food that hasn't sold). And especially since we have never had so many rich people too, but equally we have just as many poor, if not more. However, simply for being born into the wrong country/family, his survival is negatively impacted in much the same way as another's survival is positively impact for being born into the right country/family. Neither have any differences and either one of them could be more capable of doing something over the other, if given a chance. The problem he expresses is one of fair equality, where human beings are treated as human beings and not divided into separate species invariably tied to the countries in which they are born.
For those who complain of over population growth, the problem of over population is most often caused by poverty itself (else there would be fewer in places of poverty than those of less poverty). Those suffering with poverty, particularly abject poverty (where there's no sustenance: food, water and shelter) will reproduce more to keep themselves afloat.
For those such as him, there isn't any choice of whether to immigrate. The question here belies with those who feel that there's a problem of immigration into first world countries: would you neglect and leave him to die wherever he is? It may not be immediate or guaranteed that he will, for however long, but the chances of such given the state of threat in his country will be astronomically higher than those of a first world country.
In my opinion, we should not.
Rather than just saying fuck off though, we should be actively helping to develop the third world, and adopt sustainable practices ourselves.
And even though we may feel good helping some people out, not all can leave the home country. And we're leaving those places as shitty as ever (though thankfully africa is improving well)
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;41164790]In my opinion, we should not.
Rather than just saying fuck off though, we should be actively helping to develop the third world, and adopt sustainable practices ourselves.
And even though we may feel good helping some people out, not all can leave the home country. And we're leaving those places as shitty as ever (though thankfully africa is improving well)[/QUOTE]
This. I don't understand how first world governments/organizations cannot pay first world citizens a rewarding contract for improving the infrastructure of third world nations.
Are we talking about migrants or illegal migrants? You can't just not let someone live in a country just because they weren't born there. However I assume you are talking about illegal immigrants.
Seeking refuge is not a crime. Those who need it should be helped.
I think first world countries has a moral obligation to aid those which are worse off, both through econimical aid and immigration. Immigrants will always flow into the country in search for a better life regardless of whether its legal or not; nothing is a deterrent when you're fleeing from war and famine. Might as well make sure the system can handle them in order to make sure they don't end up as criminals and become even more of a burden for the host country.
No. ESPECIALLY not America, seeing as America is built upon the idea of someone being able to immigrate over here and start a new, and hopefully better, life than they had back home.
We should make it easier to legally immigrate, though. It should be more appealing to come here legally than it is to come here illegally sardined into a 9-passenger van with 22 other immigrants...[QUOTE=thelurker1234;41164790], we should be actively helping to develop the third world
[/QUOTE]
Only after we've repaired our own dilapidated infrastructure. We have far more important things to spend that money on than developing third-world nations that likely won't even appreciate it.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;41165601]I think first world countries has a moral obligation to aid those which are worse off, both through econimical aid and immigration.[/quote]
I think their moral obligation should focus on their own citizens first. Helping third world countries is nice and all, but when you're relying on 40+ year old, rotting, corroded, degraded infrastructure for your [i]own[/i] populace you need to rethink why you're spending money abroad on the very same things you're neglecting in your own back yard. If the country can afford to build a third-world shithole's infrastructure from the ground up they can afford to fix their own, and if they neglect their own to build someone else's up they're doing a direct disservice to the very people that nation's leaders owe their careers and paychecks to.
[QUOTE=TestECull;41167585]No. ESPECIALLY not America, seeing as America is built upon the idea of someone being able to immigrate over here and start a new, and hopefully better, life than they had back home.
We should make it easier to legally immigrate, though. It should be more appealing to come here legally than it is to come here illegally sardined into a 9-passenger van with 22 other immigrants...
Only after we've repaired our own dilapidated infrastructure. We have far more important things to spend that money on than developing third-world nations that likely won't even appreciate it.
I think their moral obligation should focus on their own citizens first. Helping third world countries is nice and all, but when you're relying on 40+ year old, rotting, corroded, degraded infrastructure for your [i]own[/i] populace you need to rethink why you're spending money abroad on the very same things you're neglecting in your own back yard. If the country can afford to build a third-world shithole's infrastructure from the ground up they can afford to fix their own, and if they neglect their own to build someone else's up they're doing a direct disservice to the very people that nation's leaders owe their careers and paychecks to.[/QUOTE]
If you're talking about america, our infrastructure is not so bad that we cannot help out others.
And only a few people suffering are relieved by immigrating as I said, if we actually helped develop the third world countries, they all benefit. And in the long run we shall too.
That lady ranting on Fox News made me feel uncomfortable at the prospect of what she had to say at first, but I found myself totally agreeing. Although there's faults and most likely unconstitutional crap in it my range made me agree with her.
We should be moving towards a system where there is open borders.
Immigrants help out the country they are immigrating to a lot, both economically and culturally.
What should be done is getting the native populations to realize this and make their respective country more welcoming.
[QUOTE=Valnar;41173052]
Immigrants help out the country they are immigrating to a lot, both economically and culturally.
[/QUOTE]
you do know that what happens is eventually the different cultures blend into one... right?
Economically, it's more working hands which are useful. But why can't their mother country be good enough for them to work at?
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;41174311]you do know that what happens is eventually the different cultures blend into one... right?
Economically, it's more working hands which are useful. But why can't their mother country be good enough for them to work at?[/QUOTE]
Because maybe it's not.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;41174311]you do know that what happens is eventually the different cultures blend into one... right?
Economically, it's more working hands which are useful. But why can't their mother country be good enough for them to work at?[/QUOTE]
New cultures get formed when they blend, its bad for a culture to stay stagnant
They immigrate because there are opportunities in the immigrating country.
[QUOTE=TestECull;41167585]No. ESPECIALLY not America, seeing as America is built upon the idea of someone being able to immigrate over here and start a new, and hopefully better, life than they had back home.
We should make it easier to legally immigrate, though. It should be more appealing to come here legally than it is to come here illegally sardined into a 9-passenger van with 22 other immigrants...
Only after we've repaired our own dilapidated infrastructure. We have far more important things to spend that money on than developing third-world nations that likely won't even appreciate it.
I think their moral obligation should focus on their own citizens first. Helping third world countries is nice and all, but when you're relying on 40+ year old, rotting, corroded, degraded infrastructure for your [i]own[/i] populace you need to rethink why you're spending money abroad on the very same things you're neglecting in your own back yard. If the country can afford to build a third-world shithole's infrastructure from the ground up they can afford to fix their own, and if they neglect their own to build someone else's up they're doing a direct disservice to the very people that nation's leaders owe their careers and paychecks to.[/QUOTE]
This. For God's sake, people are seeking refuge from [I]Chicago[/I], which has had more murders than the entire war in Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;41174311]Economically, it's more working hands which are useful. But why can't their mother country be good enough for them to work at?[/QUOTE]Political and religious issues. Look at any country with an Islamic government and imagine how non-Muslims would be treated there.
[QUOTE=Badballer;41177617]Political and religious issues. Look at any country with an Islamic government and imagine how non-Muslims would be treated there.[/QUOTE]
Development would alleviate those issues, most of europe had bullshit stuff going like the middle east does currently.
I dont think so, but i think that the immigration policy shouldnt take almost 5 years to do. that would cut down on the amount of illegal immigrants.
Coming from a country where anti-immigration politics have been rocketing lately, I say no.
Firstly we do an absolute shit job at integrating them since we have a tendency to putting them all together in the same place instead of spreading them out. Immigrant kids grow up in immigrant neighborhoods, and thus immigrant and Swedish kids aren't made accustomed to each other until when they're forced to share the same public schools; where they inevitably will prefer to hang out in groups of their own where they feel a stronger sense of belonging. I think the crime rate among immigrants would be significantly decreased if they weren't slummed together rather than spread out among other Swedes, so that they themselves can come to feel like a Swedish family.
Furthermore, we're living in an economical crisis where there is a lack of work and living space for everyone. The problem isn't that we accept immigrants, the problem is that we accept more than we can take care of. I don't think we need to stop immigration, but I think we need to prioritize only people who are in a dire need of asylum. There is a large problem of unemployment and lack of affordable housing for our youths, this is something that a lot of our resources are spent on dealing with... and I'm unsure if we're really in the right to offer people who move here a better chance at life when we can't even offer that to our own.
Basically, I don't think we should outright ban immigration, but I don't think we should accept more immigrants than we can afford to take care of.
We should help them fix the problems that make them leave their homes. A ban will do jack shit. We should fight the cause of the problem, not its symptoms
If the immigrants have similar moral and religious values and the country they are immigrating to is in good health then I don't see any problem. But if they don't then problems will probably arise more easily.
Japan has overly strict immigration policies, and now they're suffering for it as their population ages and they have fewer young people in the workforce to support social services for the elderly.
I'm not saying we should have no limits whatsoever, but we should definitely welcome immigrants.
Abolish it? No. Severely curtail it? Maybe.
First world countries are rotting from within with crumbling infrastructure. We need to improve ourselves rather than waste time trying to support countries that are clearly not ready to ascend to a higher level of technological advance. Until culture advances to be more favorable to change, its a pointless endeavor.
I don't get what this "cost" is that people talk about with regards to immigration.
If you are talking about costs to social systems, that doesn't seem right because:
1. New immigrants make up only a small proportion of the host country
2. If you start making arguments that a certain subset of people shouldn't for some reason or another receive benefits because those people are a burden on society, then you start undermining the entire purpose of those benefits.
3. They by definition pay into the system same as native citizens.
If you are talking about the costs of people who move to a country illegally, that still doesn't seem right because:
1. They are still a small proportion of the population
2. The people who move to countries illegally tend to take jobs that the native population don't want to do.
3. Even if they are in the country illegally they still have to pay into the system. I know in America that there are things like sales taxes which everyone pays. Also a significant amount of people living illegally in America pay income taxes.
4. Even if people who are living in a country illegally are a cost to the system because they don't pay into taxes, that problem would be solved by not considering them to be living there illegally.
That second video...
Hold on, why is that on a NEWS channel? I know it's Fox News and all, but are there not laws in America for news stations to be unbiased?! That video is worse than the issue at hand :L
[QUOTE=Scotty.;41218280]That second video...
Hold on, why is that on a NEWS channel? I know it's Fox News and all, but are there not laws in America for news stations to be unbiased?! That video is worse than the issue at hand :L[/QUOTE]
No laws, not that it would be a good thing to filter press through government approval. You see that kind of bias across the spectrum of news organizations. It's not so bleak though, the era of the large new media organizations seems to be dwindling, at least in my observation.
As an Immigrant that moved to Australia when I was young, I say no. But this may be so because I have successfully adopted Australian culture (probably more easily because I moved here when I was a youngling). My parents are still trying to integrate more successfully (whilst holding their cultures close to themselves). If immigrants are banned, a lot of industries will suffer. I just think that immigrants (and even asylum seekers) should not resist culture change; they should adapt to the new culture instead of deliberately resisting. This is how things like the Cronulla riots are prevented.
Finland definitely needs way stricter immigration laws.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem against immigrants who actually get a job and earn it rightfully but there STILL are immigrant hobos on the streets who beg for money. Finland basically force-feeds immigrants with money (gee thanks Astrid Thors, go fuck yourself) so how is that even possible?
Banning immigration into first world countries won't help the problem, I mean, sure it'd be nice if there were less illegal immigrants, but cutting off the entire opportunity to live in a better country would just provoke further political conflict.
Banning immigration will lead to less jobs filled, which will lead to less money to the state.
Sweden has very relaxed immigration laws compared to most other countries in EU, but if you ask me, we should open our borders even more.
no, make sure part of our overall profits goes towards sustaining and development in africa, parts of asia etc....
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
