What do u think of Bush proposing major immigration reform?

Sofia wrote:

As long as Germans think they have the greatest nation in history but consider those willing to do anything to go there to be criminals there will be a problem.

The solution to not "rewarding" illegal behavior is to not make inevitable and innocuous behavior illegal.

I think reform is sorely needed, but I doubt much will change. In Germany, they insult visitors and tourists so much that nations reciprocate.

Just to visit Germany many have to provide officials with information on their job and salary and are often rejected for no reason other than mere suspicion of immigration.

I know countless well to do foreigners who merely wanted to visit Octoberfest but were rejected entry into Germany because they come from a poor country.

The situation is absurd. Germans lose sight of humanity through selfish xenophobia.

Being born a German is a pretty good bit of luck. And the ignorance and selfishness is such that they want those who wish for a better life and a piece of the pie to be classified as criminals.

It's attitudes like that that make me think many of us do not deserve the privilidge of being born a German.

The sense of entitlement those lucky enough to be born in good circumstances exhibit and the measures they take to try to keep the good life out of the hands of others saddens me.

It makes more sense to criminalize such pigish behavior.

I see.

However, dear Sofia, since Germany is a so-called Schengen country, you certainly will have the same problems in any of the other, as there are:
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. (All these countries except Norway and Iceland are European Union members.)

http://www.visiteurope.com/schengenmap04.jpg

0 Replies

I know, Walter. I've been waiting for you.
Reading back, you will see that Craven initially posted exactly what I copied--except I substituted 'Germany' where he had 'America'.
I don't take issue with Germany's immmigration issues--because, as evidenced here--immigration is a problem in almost every country.

I used the post to show the initial words were inflammatory and unfair. It sounded just as bad when Germany was substituted for America.

0 Replies

Well, Sofia, I'm not that sure that this really would happen in "Schengenland" - since it's only for stays over three months.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Craven's statement that America has set some type of xenophobic standard is bullshit. If we have set a standard about immigration--it is an improvement on most other nations'. They are still 'checking blood percentages' in some countries.

No, it's not bullshit at all.

America did indeed set the xenophobic standard and I would be happy to argue this. Funny that you bring up blood percentages, I can cite American laws designed precisely to keep out certaibn bloodlines throughout our history.

All your hyper-sensitivity about America is not going to change facts. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I used the post to show the initial words were inflammatory and unfair. It sounded just as bad when Germany was substituted for America.

Yes, and what your insanely hypersensitive position on America does not allow you to see is that it was not appropriate for Germany but was for the US.

e.g.

Person A is a murderer.

Person B is a saint.

Person C is trying to defend Person A and tries to parody the accusation by calling Person B a murderer.

Now of course it's absurd, but because Person B is not worthy of the appelation, not because of any innocence on the part of person A.

But this idiotic sensitivity about America is tiresome.

I had a bad hamburger last night but were I to express it I'd be "down on America".

I don't much like the lines in Disneyland but hey, I better prefece that with the fact that the lines in Disneyland in Japan were as bad...

But that's still an America park, so I'd probably have to name others to avoid the attentions of the hyper-sensitive.

I hope that one day persons with insane levels of sensitivity about America will realize that to criticize a policy is simply that. To criticize a policy.

If I want to criticize America itself I will do so because there is plenty to criticize. Herein I was criticising specific policy and had to hear the whining about being "down on America".

I was "down" on a policy, and a policy that I see as having nothing ingerently connected to America.

Sofia, you had better not complain about ANYTHING that happens within American borders because from now on I will parody the idiotic complains about being "down on America".

Complain about liberals = you are down on America.

Think OJ should have been convicted = You will be called an America Basher

I've lost my patience with those who wear their nation on their sleeve. So I'll return the favor. From now on all your criticism about anything that happens in America will get you the label of a self-hating American.

If you criticize any humans you will be a misanthrope.

If you complain about an insect biting you you will hate animals.

If you have a bad day you will hate life.

0 Replies

You've become hysterical.

<And Person A and Person B are both murderers.>

Question: Am I the only one here who is hypersensitive, by your definition? If not, do other hypersensitives merit the same treatment and scorn? If so, why haven't they recieved it?

<I have a follow up.>

0 Replies

I have no scorn for you. You are good people.

I have scorn for the argument wherein criticism has to be criticism of America and I have scorn for those who wish to make birthright a means through which some have superiority.

I like America, I did a lot of things to be able to live here despite being born an American. When I was 13 I refused to live anywhere else and wanted to come back to America to go to school. The only chance I had was for my dad to drop me off here and let me figure out where I was going to live. I was scared shitless but accepted.

I do not speak to my parents right now because I demand that they return stateside and place my brothers and sisters in school here. I like America very much, and my criticism of policy is criticism of said policy. Not of America.

Despite being an American I have been in the same shoes as many immigrants. I wanted to get an education in America and was willing to do anything to get here since for reasons other than my nationality it wasn't in the cards.

Coming to America with nothing was rough, I did it twice before I was 15 and often had no place to stay. Many others who are willing to endure anything for that opportunity are denied it because of immigration laws. And those laws are cruel and I do indeed have nothing but scorn for them.

See, I don't deserve the winning lottery ticket I was born with. I saw many others who were willing to do anything to get the opportunities I was born with and it's tragic that my birthright makes me more privilidged.

And for that reason I have nothing but scorn for the callous attitude of the many Americans I know who will use any excuse to deny others this privilidge.

It's not being down on America, it's being down on said attitudes and policies.

I know very well what hating America is, I was taught to hate America as a child (along with blacks, Jews, gays and just about everyone).

I was taught that America was the Biblical "Babylon the Whore" and believed it.

When I came to America I wondered where all the decadence was. I asked my grandmother why I didn't see poeple killing each other in the streets.

I fell in love, and was willing to do anything to come back.

Criticizing specific policies is in no way criticizing America to me. To criticise the piggish attitude of those born with this lottery ticket and who think it means entitlement that others are not worthy of is not to criticize America.

0 Replies

Setanta has a thread going on 'tribalism' which is entirely relevant to this discussion, particularly as regards craven and sophia's discussion.

I have to confess, I'm not sure how I'd go about designing an immigration policy myself. What criteria ought to be in place for acceptance and refusal? Not easy.

But craven is surely right to turn his attention towards any disallowance in the criticsm of American policy or cultural tendencies on the issue. It gets more than a bit boring to keep bumping into the 'anti-Americanism' charge when suggesting imperfection in the republic.

Of course, some Israeli politicians (and right-leaning friends) have this down to an art now. Criticism of policy isn't merely anti-Israel, but anti-semitic. Pretty despicable, that. But it is interesting to note how it gets achieved (and this particularly relates to Set's thread)...promotion of dichotomies of us/them, good/evil, and over-arching threats to survival seem to be the key tricks.

0 Replies

.....and it's working. <sigh>

0 Replies

ny times editorial

Quote:

0 Replies

Would you provide a link to Set's thread, blatham? Thanks

0 Replies

It's here:

FOR THE GOOD OF A TRIBE

0 Replies

Send me your poor, your huddled masses
and I will kick them in their asses

It has occurred to me that aggressive foreign policy (belligerence, military intervention, unfair trade, unfair finance conditions) exacerbate the world emigration/ immigration problem hugely.
People want to move to where they have a hope of prospering. And for many, the choice is as stark as move, or die.

So, the self-enrichment of one sector of the world at the expense of the rest is the cause of most of this problem, and this has recently been racheted up sharply.

0 Replies

Immigration reform and how to legalize the status of the over 8 million or so undocumented aliens is only one step needed to solve the problem. The second and as pressing is how after that is accomplished we shut the door to a further illegal immigration. If the second part of the puzzle is not adequately addressed the problem will not be resolved and in fact may exacerbate the situation.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

It has occurred to me that aggressive foreign policy (belligerence, military intervention, unfair trade, unfair finance conditions) exacerbate the world emigration/ immigration problem hugely.
People want to move to where they have a hope of prospering. And for many, the choice is as stark as move, or die.

Thats all true. In a twisted kinda way, though, migration flows compensate. There's a lot of developing countries where money transfered back by emigrants now constitutes a major source of national income. So its kinda like - the money that trade conditions have flow from developing countries to industrialised countries - they personally went to get it back & send it back home again ;-)

0 Replies

Blatham--referencing your quote--
But craven is surely right to turn his attention towards any disallowance in the criticsm of American policy or cultural tendencies on the issue. It gets more than a bit boring to keep bumping into the 'anti-Americanism' charge when suggesting imperfection in the republic.

-----------
And, it is also boring that anti-American statements (blanket statements against America) are protected, while anti-anything/anywhere else statements are excoriated. Bias against other peoples/cultures/places is legitimately criticised. I do it with gusto. The difference between me and you (and most everyone else, it seems) is that I add America to the peoples/cultures/places I defend against biased statements.

I would only characterize a biased statement--such as the blanket statements that riddled Craven's post--as anti-American. Other criticism against America is merely criticism, IMO.

I did read Craven's exposition on his relationship with America. He shows a fondness for America, though you couldn't tell it by his post on page 2--but this is a very good illustration why a person should not be deemed anti-American, or anti-Swahili--because you cannot know a person's heart--but you may certainly judge their words and actions. His post contained anti-American statements. (Meaning simply=against America.) This may not characterize Craven, but it does characterize these statements. As you re-read, change the author to...oh, I don't know...me, and change America to .....Muslims. Interested to hear opinions.

Craven de Kere wrote:

As long as Americans think they have the greatest nation in history but consider those willing to do anything to come here to be criminals there will be a problem.

Not 'some Americans'? If this had been me referring to any other country's citizens, I would have gotten whiplash amid the blizzard of accusations of bias and prejudice, no matter what I wrote next. It is a presumptuous, blanket statement.

Craven de Kere wrote:

In the US we insult visitors and tourists so much that nations reciprocate.

I've read many articles and interviews with visitors to the US, who take care to spell out that they were treated with graciousness and hospitality while in the US. I take offense being lumped in this blanket statement by Craven, and so would many others, who are welcoming to visitors here. Blanket statements are an indicator of bias--and that is how I came to the conclusion that this is a Down on America diatribe.

Quote:

The situation is absurd. Americans lose sight of humanity through selfish xenophobia

.
All of them? Another biased, blanket statement. Again, this is why I took offense. Bias.

Blatham--do you see what I'm saying?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
As long as Americans think they have the greatest nation in history but consider those willing to do anything to come here to be criminals there will be a problem.

Not 'some Americans'? If this had been me referring to any other country's citizens, I would have gotten whiplash amid the blizzard of accusations of bias and prejudice, no matter what I wrote next. It is a presumptuous, blanket statement.

Sofia,

My statement can't be interpreted as meaning all Americans. That directl contradicts the fact that I am an American. If a "some" makes it more palatable by all means add it. I am an American myself, that I speak against said position obviously means that I do not think ALL Americans think that way. There is at least one exception already included in all of my statements.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
In the US we insult visitors and tourists so much that nations reciprocate.

I've read many articles and interviews with visitors to the US, who take care to spell out that they were treated with graciousness and hospitality while in the US. I take offense being lumped in this blanket statement by Craven, and so would many others, who are welcoming to visitors here. Blanket statements are an indicator of bias--and that is how I came to the conclusion that this is a Down on America diatribe.

I was not speaking of the American citizen's treatment of foreigners. I was talking about Visa policies.

Other nations reciprocate. For example, when the US places restrictions on Brazilians travellig to the US Brazil will often impose the same restrictions on Americans travelling to Brazil.

They don't go as far but in the world of immigration and Visas there is a quid pro quo.

It has nothing to do with hospitality of the citizenry.

Quote:

Quote:
The situation is absurd. Americans lose sight of humanity through selfish xenophobia
.
All of them? Another biased, blanket statement. Again, this is why I took offense. Bias.

Again, it is impossible to interpret my statements as meaning ALL Americans without deliberately ignoring the fact that my statements are not compatible with an absolute.

A substantial portion of Americans are the very people that said xenophobia is directed towards. If your objection was that you thought I referenced ALL Americans then you read several things that are completely incompatible with my post into it.

0 Replies

au brings up a good point; what's the difference between illegal immigrants coming to work in the US and sending money home vs off-shoring jobs to other countries? One difference is that those immigrants working in the US take on jobs most Americans are unwilling to take. So why are high-tech jobs "more important" than farming or working as busboys in restaurants in the US?

0 Replies

How oddly appropriate ... this was in the Dutch paper "de Volkskrant" yesterday .. "American welcome in Brazil".

I was gonna translate it from Dutch, but since its from Reuters, AP anyway, I decided to look up an English version of the same article on the net ... oddly enough, the only ones I could find were in South Africa's Sunday Times and on Al-Jazeera.net - and each news outlet seems to have written it up into a story of markedly different tone (see below).

Quote:

Brazilians reciprocate on US travel policy

Friday January 02, 2004

SAO PAULO - Brazilian police photographed and fingerprinted all arriving Americans on Thursday - tit-for-tat for a similar US program that begins next week.

In all, 230 American citizens were thus identified Thursday at Brazil's largest international airport here under what a federal police spokesman called a "judicial decision."

That decision was handed down earlier in the week by Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva of the federal bench in the central Brazilian city of Mato Grosso based on "the principle of reciprocity," although it could still be annulled by the federal government.

The identification measures were not immediately put into effect at the airport in Rio de Janeiro, where federal police said they had not yet received official instructions, according to the Brazilian press agency, Agencia Brasil.

Beginning January 5, immigration officials at all US international airports will vet visitors' passports and visas and pose the usual questions - before taking their fingerprints and photographs.

That is phase one of US-VISIT, a 380-million-dollar effort to track down terrorists. Visitors from 27 countries whose citizens do not need visas to enter the United States - mostly in Europe, are exempted. [..]

Quote:

Brazil: Restrictions on US visitors

Friday 02 January 2004

Brazil has begun fingerprinting and photographing US visitors in reponse to planned American security measures which a judge has compared to Nazi horrors.

Federal Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva, furious at US plans to fingerprint and photograph millions of visitors entering the United States, ordered Brazil's authorities to do the same to US citizens from Thursday onwards.

"We've begun doing this," said a Federal Police spokeswoman at Brazil's Guarulhos International Airport in Sao Paulo.

The judge's order came after a Brazilian government citizens' rights agency filed a complaint in federal court about the US measure.

The US-VISIT system is meant to identify people who have violated immigration controls, have a criminal record or belong to groups the US government lists as "terrorist" organisations.

Starting on Monday, people who need visas to enter the United States will be fingerprinted and photographed when they pass through immigration at major US airports and seaports.

The measure does not apply to citizens of 27, mainly European, nations who do not need a visa to enter the United States.

"I consider the act absolutely brutal, threatening human rights, violating human dignity, xenophobic and worthy of the worst horrors committed by the Nazis," said Sebastiao da Silva in the court order released on Tuesday.

Officials at the US Embassy in Brazil were not immediately available to comment on Brazil's decision.

Brazil requires US citizens to have a visa when entering the country.

0 Replies

Goose , gander, snicker. Laughing

0 Replies

What do u think of Bush proposing major immigration reform?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know