The Debate Thread: Immigration (Legal and Illegal)

[J@3]

When i was 13 and riding my bmx everywhere, I absolutely hated having to wear a helmet. It was the worst thing in my life at the time and I was always trying to find some cool looking helmet just so I didn't feel like such a dick. I should've just worn a turban.

It's not something that must be forced on them to do.

If I had my way it would be. I'd get rid of the stupid "how much can you Google about our country?" test and replace it with a language test.

[benji]

I think that's simply substituting a minor gripe for the actual gripe. Someone coming from Great Britain would know English (unless they're from Wales) but I'd have more of a problem if they had a desire to impose a police state like they had back home than with their gibberish phrases. Not to mention many Europeans who from my experience know English pretty well but have no concept of a society where there are actual liberties.

The point of those citizenship tests (I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if Aussieland has them as an immigration requirement too) is to see if they have enough understanding of the culture they're attempting to become a part of which I would think matters more than knowing English. Though those tests are rarely well written for many reasons.

The sad thing though, is in both cases if you gave the citizenship AND language tests to most naturally born citizens, they'd fail. I know failing the citizenship test given to those trying to become citizens is pretty much the norm with college graduates here in America. (Example, there are plenty of these stories with every study though.) And it's one reason I want a short ten question test before being allowed to vote. (No, I don't give a shit about disenfranchising people, I even think people should be allowed EXTRA votes for paying more in taxes.)

Ideally, if you were to require a test to immigrate (which again, I'm not for, but I like hypothetical thought experiments) it would not be just civics knowledge, but also include aspects of cultural knowledge along with basic language skills. For the latter, I'd mean being able to get across key ideas not write a book or proper sentence construction. (But that may just be self-serving due to my own knowledge of other languages.) I would consider slang, shorthand, etc. to be part of the cultural part, and I'd probably give the test to multiple samples of natural born citizens and tweak until the pass rate was 85+%.

I'd also like to note I don't think there should be any enforcement of second languages or other crap like that others have noted on the last page. But even English-firsters should note there is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction against the existence of other languages among some anti-immigration types. I'm being fair for both sides, immigrants should want to learn the language of a nation to help themselves, and conversely others if faced with a large population that speaks another language should want to learn that language to help themselves. The customer should want to learn some English to help them get what they want, and it wouldn't hurt the shopkeep to also learn some, say in the American case, a bit of Spanish. Not forced, but both seeing the ability to improve their trade through better understanding. Sadly we have people who have lived in areas that were once English-only that now has immigrants from Mexico who speak Spanish best throwing people out for not fully speaking English. That's just silly, you're losing money and putting yourself out of business instead of cultivating the income base. (Again, I don't want any language laws, but like my helmet point, businesses that discriminate against the majority are a problem that solves itself.)

Besides Canada has two official languages, and who wants to be like Canada? Nobody.

[Paul23]

People should not be allowed into this country unless they intend to improve it. Mexicans just want to come and steal the jobs of actual Americans. Banning them from the country as we should is not enough as the companies will just outsource the jobs. Instead we need to make sure nobody can employ anyone who are not Americans and arrest anyone who runs corporations who hire people who are not Americans. Then we can finally put a dent in this Bush caused recession and get people back to work making goods for the American people.

Shutting down Wal-Mart would be a great step in this direction, along with any other corporation that doesn't buy American goods only. Banning foreign corporations from operating in and selling in America is a sensible next step.

[J@3]

Paul23 for president. And prime minister. Not sure about banning Wal-Mart though I hear it's pretty good value.

[puttincomputers]

People should not be allowed into this country unless they intend to improve it. Mexicans just want to come and steal the jobs of actual Americans. Banning them from the country as we should is not enough as the companies will just outsource the jobs. Instead we need to make sure nobody can employ anyone who are not Americans and arrest anyone who runs corporations who hire people who are not Americans. Then we can finally put a dent in this Bush caused recession and get people back to work making goods for the American people.

Shutting down Wal-Mart would be a great step in this direction, along with any other corporation that doesn't buy American goods only. Banning foreign corporations from operating in and selling in America is a sensible next step.

you started out sane, but then you went off the deep end when you mentioned bush, wally, and banning foreign entities from operating in the usa.
do you even know how the gdp works? no, i didnt think so. go look it up.

[NovU]

You don't see anything wrong with the state punishing you for not wearing a helmet on a bike? The case that brought about this exception, the Sikh man had a ticket for $110. $110 for not wearing a fucking helmet? If someone doesn't feel it important enough to protect their skull from any potential damage, why should the state be fining them for their poor decision?

People should wear helmets by their own discretion because it's SMART, anyone who wears a helmet simply to avoid the fine is an IDIOT who deserves to have their brains splattered on the pavement. If they don't have the judgement to make a proper decision on headwear on their own and need someone to force them to do it then they certainly don't have the proper judgement to vote for stupid shit like this.

Among my other research (aka typing canadian helmet law into Google) apparently not only do you have this blanket law nationally, but each of the provinces have taken it further to denote a SPECIFIC type of helmet as the only valid ones to avoid the fine.

You don't see anything wrong with this at all? You don't see this as an absurd law that shouldn't exist? What won't you outlaw just to get more money for the government?

If you, me and shadowgrin are in a room, and we vote to decide to kill you and steal your wallet, you'd be just fine because the majority was pleased?

Oh, and btw, the exception doesn't exist from what I can tell:

A judge has dismissed the case of a devout Sikh man who argued his religious rights were violated when he received a ticket for riding his motorcycle without a helmet.

In ordering Baljinder Badesha to pay a $110 fine, Ontario Court Justice James Blacklock ruled helmetless motorcycle riding involved the “imposition” of significant extra safety risks that would pose an “undue hardship” on the province.

Badesha, 39, argued he should be exempt from the law requiring a helmet be worn while driving a motorcycle because it violates his constitutional rights to practice his religion requiring him to wear a turban at all times while outside his home.

But Blacklock ruled despite interfering with his freedom of religion, the law was justifiable because wearing a helmet “meaningfully” reduced deaths.

Allowing Badesha or other Sikh motorcyclists to ride without a helmet would not achieve the same level of safety, the judge said.

“There is a clear increase in the risk of devastating brain injury or death with the accompanying burdens on family members and the public in terms of medical needs,” Blacklock ruled.

Unless there was subsequent legislation in Parliament.

Interesting perspective. I never really gave deep thoughts on this issue before nor cared about it much. Perhaps living in BC where it is known to support diverse culture rather more than usual, I have to think I grew accustomed to accept whatever it is that is offered to us racially and culturally. Nonetheless, I am not against this law showing some degrees of tolerance to Sikh people. In some ways, it might be a bias to be favoring them with such a law, but I think it’s more of embracing different cultures which our communities here in BC emphasizes all the time.

[NovU]

People should not be allowed into this country unless they intend to improve it. Mexicans just want to come and steal the jobs of actual Americans. Banning them from the country as we should is not enough as the companies will just outsource the jobs. Instead we need to make sure nobody can employ anyone who are not Americans and arrest anyone who runs corporations who hire people who are not Americans. Then we can finally put a dent in this Bush caused recession and get people back to work making goods for the American people.

Shutting down Wal-Mart would be a great step in this direction, along with any other corporation that doesn't buy American goods only. Banning foreign corporations from operating in and selling in America is a sensible next step.

Again the benefits of having Mexicons are in cheaper and affordable labors. Basic rule of all corporations regardless of size, spend less and make more.

Big corporations like Wal-Mart have the reasons why America was the economic powerhouse globally for decades.

[koberulz]

Interesting perspective. I never really gave deep thoughts on this issue before nor cared about it much. Perhaps living in BC where it is known to support diverse culture rather more than usual, I have to think I grew accustomed to accept whatever it is that is offered to us racially and culturally. Nonetheless, I am not against this law showing some degrees of tolerance to Sikh people. In some ways, it might be a bias to be favoring them with such a law, but I think it’s more of embracing different cultures which our communities here in BC emphasizes all the time.

Benji's point is that the compulsory helmet laws shouldn't be there in the first place, not that the exception to them is stupid.

[shadowgrin]

The sad thing though, is in both cases if you gave the citizenship AND language tests to most naturally born citizens, they'd fail. I know failing the citizenship test given to those trying to become citizens is pretty much the norm with college graduates here in America. (Example, there are plenty of these stories with every study though.)

Read the article, found a link to a civics quiz and just for kicks...

Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams.

You answered 22 out of 33 correctly — 66.67 %

Average score for this quiz during August: 75.8%

Even though I'm way off the mean...Woot! Take that Yankee college educators!

[puttincomputers]

You answered 25 out of 33 correctly — 75.76 %

Average score for this quiz during August: 75.8%

I need to brush up on my civics a little bit. I also disagree with them on question thirty.

on another side of this topic.
What do yal think about Sharia law?

[benji]

You answered 33 out of 33 correctly — 100.00 %

Average score for this quiz during August: 75.7%

How can you disagree with them on #30? It asks what the government is MOST LIKELY to do, not what's best to do.

I don't think Sharia Law is "another side of this topic" really, it's only "related" because countries are allowing for plural jurisdiction in Islamic communities who tend to be made up of immigrants. It's somewhat like attributing the corruption of the Bell public servants to Mexican immigration bringing in their standard governmental practice and calling it "part of the immigration debate."

And I doubt you'll get anyone agreeing with it. (Except ZanShadow?)

[puttincomputers]

Good job BENJI!!!!
And thank you for correcting me on number 30.

Did yal hear about the mosque they are putting up at ground zero? the cleric putting it up believes we should bring sharia law into the states. Btw under sharia law an Afghan pregnant widow was whipped 100 times and then shot in the head three times with the whole village watching because they thought she was an adulteress. Also if a Muslim converts to Christianity he or she must be killed according to sharia law.
Oh and that cleric? he has been appointed by obama to be an ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

[koberulz]

You answered 21 out of 33 correctly — 63.64 %

Average score for this quiz during August: 75.7%

[benji]

Yeah, now you're really talking about something unrelated to immigration, puttincomputers. Make a new thread about that if you want to talk about it.

[puttincomputers]

unrelated?
sharia law in deerborn, michigan.

phpBB [video]

http://collegenet.com/elect/app/app?ser ... um&sp=4365

[benji]

Yes, it is mostly unrelated to the question of immigration, it is related only by a thin thread that some immigrants may want it. Since immigrants could want potentially anything it's not really related in any relevant manner.

If you want to talk about whether or not Sharia Law is a good idea, I suggest a thread specifically about it. Or use the Religion thread that already exists.

[koberulz]

http://collegenet.com/elect/app/app?service=external/Forum&sp=4365

If people want a country based soley for their religious laws and rights, build it somewhere that isn't claimed.
That's what our forefathers did in coming across the Atlantic from England/Europe.

[puttincomputers]

ok i agree he needs to remember the native americans!
but would you support an immigrant of any sort telling you that you cant do something because it offends their faith? and that if you keep doing so that you should be killed? what if the tables were reversed here and...
oh wait they were. the catholics told the natives in the americas they must become catholics or die. many were killed.

[koberulz]

but would you support an immigrant of any sort telling you that you cant do something because it offends their faith? and that if you keep doing so that you should be killed?

Yes.

[J@3]

Only if said immigrant would support me beating its ass and shipping it to another country.

[Oznogrd]

but would you support an immigrant of any sort telling you that you cant do something because it offends their faith? and that if you keep doing so that you should be killed?

Was told im going to hell all the time because i offend peoples faith. Telling me i WILL go to hell or i SHOULD be killed is pretty similar to me. Just because someone is too passionate doesnt mean i have to listen.

[benji]

but would you support an immigrant of any sort telling you that you cant do something because it offends their faith? and that if you keep doing so that you should be killed?

What difference does it make if they're an immigrant? A supermajority of Americans say the former every single day, and some of them are getting close to saying the latter.

oh wait they were. the catholics told the natives in the americas they must become catholics or die. many were killed.

Yeah, it wasn't just the Catholics doing that.