Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not a joke...for once !

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
    You didn't read what I wrote. They tend Darwinate themselves so resources can be deployed elsewhere.
    I did read it but figured that as you were complaining about them being illegal immigrants that you guys must miss quite a few. How is little Cuba doing these days?

    Comment


    • #17
      Britain, France, and a whole host of other European countries are living proof of what happens when you relax immigration controls and adopt the liberal ideology of allowing anyone and everyone in because they are somehow "entitled to it."

      These countries have been completely and totally overrun. We've all seen the chaotic riots by literally hundreds of thousands of immigrants in Paris. Almost every Brit I know wants out of the UK, citing the inability to go anywhere or do anything without feeling like they're in a foreign country.

      Nevertheless, in spite of what we see going on in those countries right now, and despite the fact that the Brits and the French finally revolted against this crap and threw all of the liberals responsible out of office, the country I live in is proposing to do the exact same thing (amnesty). Are my fellow Americans really that stupid? I really, really fear the answer.

      Coming soon to a U.S. city near you:

      Trump is an idiot!
      Vote Democrats!!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying
        after all, a country of immigrants.
        We get the same howls of "stop the immigrants" which always makes me grin. Unless you are a full blood Australian Aboriginal then you are a migrant. Australia wasn't 'settled' until 1788, so the only true culture we have in Australia is what grows under your toenails.

        Mind you I am not in favour of just throwing the doors open - we need to taper off the rate of migration, so some moderation in the current policies would be appreciated.


        Australia - Best toenail culture in the world!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying
          Why this compulsive need to "blame the liberals" or "blame the conservatives" and oversimplify every issue?
          Because, all in all, liberals (or at least those in power) are the ones who most often vote to thwart any measure that would make things more difficult for illegals. Until Joe Wilson spoke up, for example, they voted down three separate amendments to the House health care bill that would have required proof of ID (and thus citizenship) prior to rendering public sponsored care. They claimed that the bill already excluded illegals. Well, if that was so, why vote down an amendment (three times) that would have made double sure? Easy.. they wrote the wording of the bill to specifically exclude illegals, but with no mechanism to actually check to see if someone was legal or not. Sneaky!

          They are always the ones you hear howling whenever there's an "unfair" (in their mind) INS raid, or when someone actually dares to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books, like Joe Arpaio down in Arizona.

          I guess you could consider my view "independent," too, because I disagree with "my side" on a lot of its positions on this debate. I personally believe there's only one way to solve things, as you put it, and that's to crack down on not only the new illegals crossing into the US every day, but those who are already here illegally. Yes, it would cost money, probably a lot more than it should considering it would be the federal government in charge of running it.. but it would also save a ton.

          I am also fully in favor of harsher penalties, and going along with my point above, MORE OVERSIGHT of businesses and ENFORCEMENT of the law for those companies who violate it by taking advantage of illegal labor.

          And, yes, I do realize that there are a large number of illegals here who are good, honest workers looking for a better life. My point is this: come in legally. Yeah, you might have to take a test to prove that you know more than three words of English, who the President is, and prove that you have gainful employment awaiting you when you get here, so that you aren't a burden on everyone else.

          Over a million do it every year, so can you.
          Trump is an idiot!
          Vote Democrats!!

          Comment


          • #20
            It is not a problem if you let people into your country, who respect the culture of your country and are eager and qualified to work in your country and make it prosper. In that regard the US is kind of blessed with your immigrants from Mexico and Latin America.

            Europe on the other hand has immigrants who hate their host countries, their culture and their way of living. They havo ne desire to work and just demand social wellfare to care for their needs, while they are sending money to terrists ready to fight the values their home countries stand for.

            Comment


            • #21
              You make good points, Stefan.

              I would point out that many illegals crossing the Rio Grande are also coming here looking for nothing more than a handout. The really sad situation, unfortunately, is that many more of them have grand delusions of what it's really like here. They believe that the streets are paved in gold and that good jobs are plentiful for anyone seeking them. Things aren't so hot here right now either, with unemployment (which doesn't even count illegals) hovering around 10%, so many illegals come here with the best of intentions but end up living off the system (taxpayers). I don't believe that just because someone had good intentions, that makes that acceptable.

              You're absolutely right, though, Europe has it far worse than we do. I can't even fathom what it would be like to sit back and watch my country be overtaken by people who hate the way of life, and everything the country stands for. These people seem to believe that they can overtake a country, then force everyone who graciously let them in to adapt to their customs, points of view, and way of life. That ain't how it works.

              If I lived in a place where I had to deal with Muslims violently, non-violently, or otherwise protesting the very foundations and principles of a country they VOLUNTARILY emigrated into, I'd probably wind up in jail, or dead. If you don't like the way things are, get the hell out and go back where you came from, in my view.

              Thankfully, many European nations seem to have started fighting to try to take their countries back, through elections (in every single case, replacing liberals with conservatives, F_O_F), legislation, etc. I just hope it's not too late.
              Trump is an idiot!
              Vote Democrats!!

              Comment


              • #22
                Just a few notes:

                - There is a difference between a Refugee/Asylum seeker and an Immigrant. First and foremost, from a legal perspective - the Refugee/Asylum seeker is not committing an illegal action by living in a host nation (due to the fact that their rights are assessed at the point of entry). Legal immigrants do have their rights/stay assessed at the point of entry, and illegal immigrants do not. From that perspective (and rather important nuance), it is important not to group all of these groups together, as legal processes and the will inevitably affect them quite differently.

                - As for refugees - if, after a period of time, the threat that initialized/legitimized the refugee may be returned to their state/nation. The onus is on the host nation to begin the deportation. As is mostly common, the situation is not ever rectified in a timely manner (to a satisfactory level - one that is suitable to the safe return and guaranteed rights of the human) and so the refugee and his/her family is allowed to pass from a 'refugee' status to an immigrant with proper legal aide.

                My issue with anti-refugee sentiments: if you so wish to push your inhuman agenda then do so by working within your government's legal and political systems to remove the power of judicial and legislative officials to grant asylum. In reality, they are the ones that grant it, and you are the ones that put them there.

                Possible backlash for denying refugees assistance/aide: a loss to global reputation (instead being branded unsympathetic), hatred from other nations/peoples,not being able to attempt to fix errors that the host nation and other allied nations have perhaps effected (case in point - Tamil Tigers and their relationship with the U.K.) and the opportunity cost associated with not hosting peoples that are being persecuted - most of them ethnic/religious minorities.

                Somethings to consider (from a liberal perspective):

                -If we, as Britons, as Germans, as French, as NATO members, as citizens of nations of the United Nations, or as Americans wish to fight wars to 'combat the injustices of inequality' in both Iraq and Afghanistan (in recent times) and in other theaters/nations - then who are we to deny persecuted peoples a place to live when we fail? In other words, why wage wars to help, if we really don't care to help?

                - Has anyone here ever been a refugee? Has anyone here ever had to endure what most of these people do? Has anyone here worked with Refugees and Asylum seekers before? Has anyone here heard their stories, and perhaps seen the traumas that many of them endure? If you are unable to see it from their angle, then who are you to judge them? I go back to my original point - remember your role - taxpayer and voter. Either don't pay your taxes (and do not support your government, which is illegal) or use your vote to make a difference. In the mean while, don't judge - that's not your current role. When and if you get to that point in life - it will also be your job to see this issue in its entirety. If you cannot see things from the eyes of the refugee, and from the eyes of the legislator/judicial official then you are an idiot to judge.

                I have to wonder - if you wish to return Tamil Tigers to Sri Lanka, and to return Afghan dissidents (that will likely return to Afghanistan to a land and a people that will not even consider a fair trial and the like), and to return the rest - would you have been willing to return Jews (that had escaped the Holocaust) back to Germany? Would you have been willing to send Polish refugees back to Poland (during WWII and afterwards, until the fall of Communism)?

                BTW - here are some of the efforts that you are wishing to stand against:
                http://www.youtube.com/user/unhcr?blend=1&ob=4
                Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
                  Just a few notes:

                  - There is a difference between a Refugee/Asylum seeker and an Immigrant. First and foremost, from a legal perspective - the Refugee/Asylum seeker is not committing an illegal action by living in a host nation (due to the fact that their rights are assessed at the point of entry). Legal immigrants do have their rights/stay assessed at the point of entry, and illegal immigrants do not. From that perspective (and rather important nuance), it is important not to group all of these groups together, as legal processes and the will inevitably affect them quite differently.
                  Playing devil's advocate here (as I'm never want to do) There is a difference between a Refugee/Asylum seeker as defined by the UN and what many other countries are experiencing. A true refugee is entitled to seek refuge in countries near the place they are fleeing. At the moment we have boatloads here in Oz coming from the other side of the globe! That means, if you are a genuine refugee then the adjoining countries are your target if you want to be treated as a refugee. Picking a country on the other side of the globe, then paying a people smuggler to get you there as you transit a whole stack of other contries that are not at war is stretching the definition of 'refugee' to illegal tourist IMHO.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Last time I looked at this thread there was only one post from Tom Alfano. Came back today to see 25 replies and thought "Oh, oh...I bet I'm in the poo here !"
                    What a surprise though. A rational discussion taking place !

                    Sorry about the wide picture of the white cliffs of Dover painted with the words..."F**k off, we're full up" !!! I'm sure you can make an image in your mind without me having to repost it in a smaller version.

                    A little bit of history on why I posted, and I'm not the originator of the wording by the way.

                    I have absolutely no axe to grind with any foreigner who enters the UK legally, accepts our way of life and makes their contribution to the nation by working and paying taxes. I have no problem with them following their own religion. I have no problem with them sending their children to a school where their children can learn about their family origins and learn English as a second language. Such people I welcome with open arms and will give every assistance to in order to settle into our way of life.

                    I do have a problem when the immigrant refuses to settle into our way of life, refuses to learn English, scrounges off of the taxpayer, tries to impose their religion and/or political views above the values that I as an Englishman value, tries to make our children's education follow their way of life with the standard English education taking second place.
                    Just to keep the perspective, I also have no sympathy with my own people who refuse to work, scrounge off of the state and generally feed off of those who do make their contribution.

                    Every day here in Britain we have to put up with people from other nations who demand what they see as their "rights" to payment of a weekly unearned income, free housing, free mobile phone, free driving lessons...all of it paid for from taxes that they have never contributed to and are never likely to. These people take all they can from us and then try to impose their values on us. I am taking great care not to point a finger at a particular socio-religious group but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out where that line of thought is going.

                    My stepson was recently fired from his job of 10 years standing, illegally fired I might add, because he had the temerity to go off sick with a chest infection. Since then he has been unable to find a job despite trying just about every day. In the end his money ran out and he had no choice but to turn to our social services ( now THERE'S an oxymoron if ever I heard one if you're a white Englishman making a claim ! ). He didn't want to, he would much prefer to work but had no choice.
                    He got a privately rented flat which the local council paid the rent on....until they heard that he had been fired and why. They didn't believe that he'd been fired for going sick because that would have been an illegal sacking so they unilaterally decided that he'd made himself unemployed....and stopped his rent relief immediately. My wife and I helped him out until we managed to sort out the local council and get the payments reinstated but you would not believe the hoops we had to jump through to get some justice. Since then there have been several instances of his social security pay being suddenly cut for no apparent reason. At one point he was given an "emergency payment" of £10. That was supposed to last him a month. A total joke. He got no support from social services, we had to fight his corner for him.

                    Balance that against the middle eastern man who came into the social security office and declared himself an illegal immigrant and claimed asylum.
                    Let me repeat a part of that...He came into the social security office to claim asylum !
                    You claim asylum at immigration on entry to the country, not at a social security office, but run the risk of being immediately returned to your own country. Life gets easier if you bypass immigration, you are far less likely to be returned and can always melt away into the community if it looks like it's all going bent for you. This man left the social security office with £500 in his pocket for him and his claimed family...he had no formal identity documents but he got an immediate payment. Something is fundamentally wrong with our social services.

                    The population of the UK rises by approximately 240,000 per year (figure takes into account those who leave the UK in the same year) as a result of LEGAL immigration. Add in a natural birth rate amongst the immigrants once here and that can rise by another 60,000. Remember, this is LEGAL immigration. It takes no account of those who enter illegally.

                    The UK government is taking steps to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants into the workplace with a £5,000 fine and a possible prison sentence per worker hired....even if you hire the person in the belief that they are legally here. Ironically, the very government minister who introduced the legislation herself fell foul of the law by hiring an illegal immigrant housekeeper. She paid the fine but guess who won't be going to jail ?.....and let's face it, £5,000 to a Baroness of the realm and government minister is peanuts, just spending money.

                    The UK is starting to get on top of immigration but I fear its too little, too late. We need far stricter immigration rules. We need to be able to return illegals to their country of origin without the interference of the kissy kissy, huggy huggy human rights groups. You come here illegally, you don't HAVE any rights. Personally, for legal immigration I would vote for the Australian points system...a system which ironically prevented me from going there because I was too old.
                    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I agree that illegal immigrants and refugees are two separate categories, but both carry their own problems. For refugees, gaining entry is almost a guarantee of staying, which I don't think was the original intent of the program in most countries.
                      Don't let the word "refugee" fool you... Many of these people are nothing but illegalís who enter countries through legal means and know how to play the system. They still burden us with the same negatives illegalís burden us with.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        If we, as Britons, as Germans, as French, as NATO members, as citizens of nations of the United Nations, or as Americans wish to fight wars to 'combat the injustices of inequality' in both Iraq and Afghanistan (in recent times) and in other theaters/nations - then who are we to deny persecuted peoples a place to live when we fail? In other words, why wage wars to help, if we really don't care to help
                        Do you even have a basic understanding of why we wage war on other nations? You're so busy with your Kum ba ya lets all hug and kiss style posts that you really have no clue..

                        The U.S doesn't wage war to free the people of other nations. We go to war because OUR (yes we are selfish Americans) interests are at stake. History shows that our involvement in wars is just that. If we wanted to play the White Knight we would have declared war on countries like Germany when they invaded Poland...oh and btw if Germany had not declared war on the U.S...we very well would not have engaged Germany until we were done with Japan if at all. The difference when we go to war is we dump billions into these countries to help them rebuild.

                        My issue with anti-refugee sentiments: if you so wish to push your inhuman agenda then do so by working within your government's legal and political systems to remove the power of judicial and legislative officials to grant asylum. In reality, they are the ones that grant it, and you are the ones that put them there.
                        Inhuman agenda??? Oh here you go again with the victim crap. The U.S's policies overseas are far from inhuman. People who come in from Mexico and the Islands are not refugees...they are illegal aliens who enter the country illegally, live here without paying taxes, take jobs, keep wages stagnated, and commit crimes more so then others. So simply because they have it tuff in their home countries means we should show some compassion and let them live among us violating our laws?

                        I swear like most liberals you'd rather put the needs of others before your own... You may think I'm arrogant, ignorant or w/e but I swear more and more I'm learning the smartest thing to ever come out of your mouth is a manís genitals.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
                          - Has anyone here ever been a refugee? Has anyone here ever had to endure what most of these people do? Has anyone here worked with Refugees and Asylum seekers before? Has anyone here heard their stories, and perhaps seen the traumas that many of them endure? If you are unable to see it from their angle, then who are you to judge them? I go back to my original point - remember your role - taxpayer and voter. Either don't pay your taxes (and do not support your government, which is illegal) or use your vote to make a difference. In the mean while, don't judge - that's not your current role. When and if you get to that point in life - it will also be your job to see this issue in its entirety. If you cannot see things from the eyes of the refugee, and from the eyes of the legislator/judicial official then you are an idiot to judge.

                          I have to wonder - if you wish to return Tamil Tigers to Sri Lanka, and to return Afghan dissidents (that will likely return to Afghanistan to a land and a people that will not even consider a fair trial and the like), and to return the rest - would you have been willing to return Jews (that had escaped the Holocaust) back to Germany? Would you have been willing to send Polish refugees back to Poland (during WWII and afterwards, until the fall of Communism)?

                          BTW - here are some of the efforts that you are wishing to stand against:
                          http://www.youtube.com/user/unhcr?blend=1&ob=4
                          In fact I had the pleasure working with asylum seekers. We renovated some flats to as new status, put new washing machines, ovens, microwaves and TVs into them. Just 3 months later those and the furniture where either not working anymore or gone. So new stuff was bought just to do it again and again and again and again... Only after the city council got tired of buying new stuff and bought cheap used stuff the things remained in place.

                          I think asylum is a right that has to be granted, but I also think that asylum seekers are still guests in the countries that give them refuge and should behave like guests. It becomes a little hard to believe that some of them deserve asylum, when they are caught dealing with drugs or sponsoring terrorists. Especially if their home countries want to hang them for terrorism or drug dealing.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
                            Do you even have a basic understanding of why we wage war on other nations? You're so busy with your Kum ba ya lets all hug and kiss style posts that you really have no clue..
                            Intelligence threathens your ignorant ways, and so you invalidate it by branding it "kum ba ya hug and kiss style,". It's ok, I have never expected you to understand where and when empathy and intelligence would interact and/or be appropriate. To be quite fair, you are capable of neither.

                            Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
                            The U.S doesn't wage war to free the people of other nations. We go to war because OUR (yes we are selfish Americans) interests are at stake. History shows that our involvement in wars is just that. If we wanted to play the White Knight we would have declared war on countries like Germany when they invaded Poland...oh and btw if Germany had not declared war on the U.S...we very well would not have engaged Germany until we were done with Japan if at all. The difference when we go to war is we dump billions into these countries to help them rebuild.
                            It's a great thing that you have never held public office. Alone, your thoughts would give MSNBC enough fodder for Rachel Maddow to retire. Oh, and as for "not attacking Germany," great analysis. Sadly, you got your MBA without ever touching a history book. Better luck next time.


                            Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
                            Inhuman agenda??? Oh here you go again with the victim crap. The U.S's policies overseas are far from inhuman. People who come in from Mexico and the Islands are not refugees...they are illegal aliens who enter the country illegally, live here without paying taxes, take jobs, keep wages stagnated, and commit crimes more so then others. So simply because they have it tuff in their home countries means we should show some compassion and let them live among us violating our laws?
                            Re-read the above. Once again, there is a difference between Asylum seeker and Immigrant. If you can get past your inability to read my posts/stalk me on the forums, you might be able to see that. Then again, with my expectations of you being this low, I am sure that you will find a way to suprass them. A pre-emptive round of applause!

                            Originally posted by tommyalf View Post
                            I swear like most liberals you'd rather put the needs of others before your own... You may think I'm arrogant, ignorant or w/e but I swear more and more I'm learning the smartest thing to ever come out of your mouth is a man’s genitals.
                            Sadly, you can't take a hint. As I have said time and time again - it will never be yours. I am not into old men that try to hard to be wealthy, young and cultured. Sorry mate.

                            Oh, P.S. - great job of being a role model on this site. You have hit a new low with that last comment (so very mature - it must be fun speaking like a 12 year old when you are in your 40s). It's great to see that these are the esteemed values of these forums...

                            One more thing - with a last name like Alfano, I assume that you must be Cherokee, Chocotaw or Seminole, right? Or, was it that your ancestors too came to these shores, and sought asylum and/or immigration to this nation knowing that they could not prosper in their own homes? It's ok - I'll keep the genitals in my mouth if you keep your crap in yours.
                            Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying
                              I know Canada has a point system as well that seems to be a good way of handling immigration. Like Australia, I think they've gotten saddled with a lot of refugee claims. What system do the British use now?
                              Sadly, though - with Australia the easy at which many of the more 'high-profile cases' are able to reach the continent (and the fact that they have been rather well targeted by human trafficers) just blows some of the cases onto the pages of the press. Unlike many of the other nations, Australia's recent issues with Refugees (notably "The Pacific Solution") has done rather great damage to the image of the state.
                              Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by seahawk View Post
                                In fact I had the pleasure working with asylum seekers. We renovated some flats to as new status, put new washing machines, ovens, microwaves and TVs into them. Just 3 months later those and the furniture where either not working anymore or gone. So new stuff was bought just to do it again and again and again and again... Only after the city council got tired of buying new stuff and bought cheap used stuff the things remained in place.
                                I am sorry to hear that things turned out in such a manner. I think (I know, my 'kum by ya - hug and kiss idiocracy') that even though you have a few that abuse the system - most of the time the system works. Do I think that the systems should be changed? Yes, undoubtedly so. But, am I going to say that the system is a failure? No.

                                I worked with the UNHCR recently at a fund raiser, and also as a volunteer and when reading some of the cases you have to be inhuman to not feel for these people. I understand that when under trauma people tend to exaggerate (as some have said that these people lie and 'work the system to stay here'), but some of the cases (one in particular where a woman from Nigeria had her entire family killed by the family that she married into, only to then have her husband torture her -going as far as dousing her with acid) are so grave that you have to wonder - why would someone fake those traumas.

                                Originally posted by seahawk View Post
                                I think asylum is a right that has to be granted, but I also think that asylum seekers are still guests in the countries that give them refuge and should behave like guests.
                                While I agree with you here - I have to ask (and here I am trying to be as clear as possible, because I do not mean to be rude, but just to be inquisitive and the statement might come off as rude) what constitutes behaving like a guest?

                                Originally posted by seahawk View Post
                                It becomes a little hard to believe that some of them deserve asylum, when they are caught dealing with drugs or sponsoring terrorists. Especially if their home countries want to hang them for terrorism or drug dealing.
                                The problem here, alot of the time, is that the asylum seeker's national laws and legal systems are corrupt and/or perverted by other issues that can prevent fair and blanaced trials/pursuits of justice. As with my example above (of the Nigerian woman), the asylum seeker fled her country illegally (crossing the boarder to a neighbouring nation without a passport) becuase she was going to be tried for adultery under her state's laws. Was she innocent of the charges, she claims that she was. Was the system biased towards her family and more importantly to her husband? The statistics do proove that. So, we have to consider when and where the conviction was made, and if there is a bias involved, and also if the legal system is sound.
                                Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X